Need opinions Omega Calatrava Cal.268

lilwine · Feb 14, 2020

Hi all,
Omega Calatrava Cal268 Steel 34mm Ref 121.002 63
https://www.chrono24.com/omega/mens...ress-watch-34mm-ref-121002-63--id14207165.htm
What do you think about this watch? Is it worth $ 640? I ask this because it is an interesting design and I would like to buy it.
Your opinions would greatly help me.

X350 XJR · Feb 14, 2020

First it's not a Calatrava, because it's an Omega and not a Patek. Dial is interesting but barely acceptable to many, a bit too much patina for a dress watch, second hand is incorrect. Case size at 34mm isn't particularly large but certainly quite wearable.

You could do a lot worse for the money.

I'm sure others will have an opinion.

lilwine · Feb 14, 2020

X350 XJR
First it's not a Calatrava, because it's an Omega and not a Patek. Dial is interesting but barely acceptable to many, a bit too much patina for a dress watch, second hand is incorrect. Case size at 34mm isn't particularly large but certainly quite wearable.

You could do a lot worse for the money.

I'm sure others will have an opinion.

Thank you for your honesty.

Rochete · Feb 14, 2020

Dunno. That reference bears a 269 according to OVDT. No 'Swiss' on dial.

Syrte · Feb 14, 2020

I like the dial design— those applied markers in the shape of roman numerals at XII, III and IX are very elegant and also I find them quite unusual even though I don’t follow Omega very much. Personally I don’t mind the little bit of patina on the dial either.

To me the price seems a bit expensive but @X350 XJR knows much more than I do. Also if you find something unusual that you really like there’s no harm paying a little too much once - so long as it doesn’t become a habit.

OMEGuy · Feb 14, 2020

My first thought is that this is no early 1960s dial / hand design and I can't find another ref. 121.002-63 with the same or at least a similar setup.

Syrte · Feb 14, 2020

OMEGuy
My first thought is that this is no early 1960s dial / hand design and I can't find another ref. 121.002-63 with the same or at least a similar setup.

And so? Agree the style is 1950s. Does the movement serial number not fit with a 1950s watch?
On the brand that I follow I always ignore sellers date indications— they are often clueless. They sometimess identify watches as 1960s or 1970s when they’re actually 1930s or 1940s. The only thing that matters is whether the various parts are consistent.

OMEGuy · Feb 14, 2020

It looks like a "marriage" to me.

OMEGuy · Feb 14, 2020

Syrte
And so? Agree the style is 1950s. Does the movement serial number not fit with a 1950s watch?
On the brand that I follow I always ignore sellers date indications— they are often clueless. They sometimess identify watches as 1960s or 1970s when they’re actually 1930s or 1940s. The only thing that matters is whether the various parts are consistent.

You added some text after my response... I was just answering your "And so?".

The movement serial # I can see in the picture is 19.2 mio.

Edit: Agree, I should have explained more precisely, why I said something's wrong. I will try to make it better next time.

bubba48 · Feb 14, 2020

The dial is correct (and beautiful) for the early 60s

OMEGuy · Feb 14, 2020

bubba48
The dial is correct (and beautiful) for the early 60s

Interesting. Can you show another example?

OMEGuy · Feb 14, 2020

We agree that this reference was not released before 1962?

https://www.omegawatches.com/watch-omega-other-omega-st-121-0002

Gav1967 · Feb 14, 2020

X350 XJR
First it's not a Calatrava, because it's an Omega and not a Patek. Dial is interesting but barely acceptable to many, a bit too much patina for a dress watch, second hand is incorrect. Case size at 34mm isn't particularly large but certainly quite wearable.

You could do a lot worse for the money.

I'm sure others will have an opinion.

^^^^^^^
+1
sums it up for me

Rochete · Feb 14, 2020

First thing I thought this is a 50s watch then I saw reference came out in 1962 with a 269. I googled reference and couldn't see any similar one. So I concluded there was a big chance of frankenization. Then I couldn't see 'Swiss', which I understand every watch bore long ago by 1962. Too many questions for me.

I love the patina though...

Syrte · Feb 14, 2020

Rochete
First thing I thought this is a 50s watch then I saw reference came out in 1962 with a 269. I googled reference and couldn't see any similar one. So I concluded there was a big chance of frankenization. Then I couldn't see 'Swiss', which I understand every watch bore long ago by 1962. Too many questions for me.

I love the patina though...

There is no « Swiss » visible on the Omega picture of the reference @OMEGuy posted above. So maybe in both cases it’s hidden by the bezel and the curve of the crystal?

Also one cannot exclude, for watches that are mass produced, that slightly earlier dials stocks are being liquidated or used on some examples of a given reference. A late 50s dial can have been placed at the factory on an early 60s watch.

pS agree it’s a beautiful dial.

gatorcpa · Feb 14, 2020

Personally, I think the parts are all genuine Omega, but it has been put together as a "Frankenwatch".

The dial has more of an early 1950's look, but the case and movement are from 1963.

A nice looking piece, but not worth the money being asked.
gatorcpa

OMEGuy · Feb 14, 2020

Syrte
There is no « Swiss » visible on the Omega picture of the reference @OMEGuy posted above. So maybe in both cases it’s hidden by the bezel and the curve of the crystal?

Also one cannot exclude, for watches that are mass produced, that slightly earlier dials stocks are being liquidated or used on some examples of a given reference. A late 50s dial can have been placed at the factory on an early 60s watch.

pS agree it’s a beautiful dial.

Agreed, the dial looks quite nice and the hands are matching in a way...

But just for me and facing the facts this is a watch that can't be confirmed to be correct. The other way round, nothing seems to match.

Coming back to the OPs question I would say buy it, if you love it, being aware it is a put-together. And run away if you are looking for an original vintage watch, go find a real one instead.

Rochete · Feb 14, 2020

Syrte
There is no « Swiss » visible on the Omega picture of the reference @OMEGuy posted above. So maybe in both cases it’s hidden by the bezel and the curve of the crystal?

I think the Swiss Made can be seen here, distorted by crystal as you say and also by low pic quality:

Also one cannot exclude, for watches that are mass produced, that slightly earlier dials stocks are being liquidated or used on some examples of a given reference. A late 50s dial can have been placed at the factory on an early 60s watch.

Yep, can't be excluded. Just too many questions. Although to be honest, at 'the right price' I would possibly buy it: dial is very beautiful, case is fine, movement a 30mm... a nice wearer just probably not factory original.

Syrte · Feb 14, 2020

Dial and hands actually match each other from a style viewpoint.
And the caliber of the OP watch is a 268 and not a 269 suggesting a movement that’s earlier than the reference whose picture @OMEGuy posted above.

what year is the movement serial supposed to be, exactly? If that movement serial is for sure early 1960s- then there is no proof that it’s a marriage. The case and movement seem unmessed with, crown looks correct— unlike what is often seen on put togethers.

However the movement holding screws have been turned - unlike the other screws it seems on the movement. And there are no service marks or scratches on the inside case back either- which is consistent.

So I would say at least the movement / dial and hands do belong together. (Except perhaps seconds hand which seems like a crude replacement).

Did they pertain to a gold case which has been melted and has anyone retrofitted them to a steel case from a slightly later period? That may be a question.

mac_omega · Feb 15, 2020

Sorry that I am a bit late to the party.

IMO at least the dial (maybe also the movement) has been recycled from a gold watch.

I have a 14K YG example with similar uncommon hour markers at 3,6,9 and 12 (although a bit different):

It is marked with the reference# 2894 - 1 and has a calibre 267 encased in the range of 16.9xxx mio.

When you look this reference up in the Omega data base you find it listed as a "Tresor" from 1958 with cal. 267 but with a different dial which is not uncommon as there were several different dial styles used...

Here a link to the ODB: https://www.omegawatches.com/watch-omega-tresor-omega-ot-2894
It is listed as OT which means 18K while mine is 14K (OJ) which shows that there different alloys have been used for the cases.
I am convinced that this Tresor was never built in SS as the Tresor references usually were cased in heavy gold cases.

My conclusion on the watch of the OP:
the case is later for sure, maybe also the 268 movement which has a considerably higher serial# at 19.2 mio although it is not impossible that this Tresor has been built for several years, so the 19,2 mio might be possible (but not very likely).
The hands are not a match.
Most likely the whole watch is a marriage...

my 2 cents...

Need opinions Omega Calatrava Cal.268

lilwine

X350 XJR

lilwine

Rochete

Syrte

OMEGuy

Syrte

OMEGuy

OMEGuy

bubba48

OMEGuy

OMEGuy

Gav1967

Rochete

Syrte

gatorcpa

OMEGuy

Rochete

Syrte

mac_omega

Similar threads

Need Help Verifying an Omega Calatrava Dial, Something Feels Off

I need your advice on an inherited Omega OT 14707 Cal. 268

omega calatrava? would appreciate some expert advice maybe redial?

Omega cal 268. - need advice

1959 Omega Calatrava Calibre 267 in rose gold

Considering this IWC Cal. 89 - Need Opinions