hi hi,

Am a new member who very recently started exploring vintage watches..

Am considering purchasing my first piece but am really unsure how authentic this is.. wondering if anyone here might be able to share and provide some advice..?

The photos are below and the movement is not clear as the owner does not know hoe to open it. But he is willing to meeting with me and having me open it.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated!

 

Terrible picture of the “works”! It appears to me to be related to the Omega caliber 420 as in the image from the Ranfft archive I have posted . With one significant difference. In the image you posted, the regulator is a vernier style with a whiplash spring, where the reference image shows a standard regulator. The dial is one major question in my eyes. The name Omega and the Omega logo appear to me to have been put on with a rubber stamp. Ugly!

 

Dial's wrong. Crown's later. Lugs varying thickness. Rest is too out of focus to comment on.

Walk away but, purely out of interest, what's the asking price?

 

The asking price is 550 USD.

Thanks you for your comments.

 

May I ask Jimmy, what is it about the crown and dial that made you conclude that it’s incorrect..?

 

Thank you for the comments. Sorry I forgot to mention this: the seller mentioned it is of a caliber 520, a hand wind model from the 1960s. What is the ranfft archive you are referring to..? Perhaps I can take a look at it and hopefully learn something as I am really new at this.

Yes the dial does seem questionable but am just unable to say why.

Thanks!

 

Sure. Below is a similar example, bought at auction last November. The one below is all original (and was a non-runner, for obvious reasons).

 

This is a link to the Ranfft archive where the Omega caliber 420 is shown. Owing to the bad picture you posted, was unable to read the caliber 520. Ranfft doesn’t list the caliber 520, but a quick Google search indicates that there is a caliber 520.

The link to the Ranfft archive:

http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&2&2uswk

Caliber 520:

 

Thanks so much for the link..!

 

Actually am quite confused regarding the dial. Because when I do a Google search in seamasters 1960s, there seems to be so many versions and just very confused which versions are the authentic ones.

How do you go about in determining those..?

 

All Omegas with a 520 movement will share one thing in common. They all have a 520 movement. Cases, dials, and attachments, will vary depending on the year the watch was manufactured in, the market it was sold into, and also bastardizations that have happened once the watches reach the collectibles market. You can give up hoping to find a totally comprehensive catalog or guide that will show every variation.

 

There's a large number of variations of dials. That said, the fonts remain the same. I've just looked back at the photo I posted and how out of focus it is! In your example, the E (and G most likely) are incorrect. Now, I actually took your example to be earlier than it is and would have said it had the wrong "seamaster" but you later say it's "60s".

Anyway, to answer your question as best I can:
first, look at the font. You have to learn the fonts as there are variations over the years. That also means you have to know the year that the watch comes from;
next, look at the alignment. The text should always be centred and straight. Draw (imaginary) lines from the two and ten markers to the centre of the dial and the text at the top should be equidistant to those lines. Same applies to any text at the bottom of the dial, taking lines from 4 and 8;
third, factory prints are even. Markers on the minute track will be the same length and thickness (often with the exception of thicker markers at 12, 3, 6 and 9). Apply common sense when you consider wear and age to the dial. Always be suspicious of dials that look like new;
fourth, learn how different dials age. Understand how heat or damp affects dials (and lume). Look for "age spots" in the laquer. Look carefully for absence of laquer as this is often missing in redials.

There is no short cut to learning these things. Read. Everything. Books, online references. Go find Chuck Maddox' blog. It's a little outdated (the great man passed a number of years ago), but he was (one of, if not the) first to really analyse watches. He had a passion and it is infectious. We're lucky that his essays are still maintained by others.

Get your hands on as many watches as you can. You have to get experience. When you've handled enough "right" watches, you can spot bad fakes from across the room and you can tell "wrong" watches when you pick them up. There is no short cut to experience. And never forget that you only know a fraction of what there is to know. I hold my hands up to making a mistake just last week. I don't make too many mistakes but I know that won't be my last.

In fact, just to round things off, here's my mistake ... see if you can spot why it's "wrong":

 

You have to look at hundreds and hundreds of dials, original and redialled, to "get your eye in". There is no short cut.

 

Hi Jimmy,

Thanks so much for making the effort for such a detailed response.

Yes, now that you mention it, it does seem quite bad. I had originally thought it looked that way cause in the 60s perhaps the tools they had to manufacture the watches weren’t as sophisticated and hence might had resulted in some misalignment.

Ok. I will Google on Chucks blog and start reading from there.

As for your image... is it because the letter G is slightly misaligned..?

Thank you again...!

 

The G may be slightly misaligned as I look again (you can always convince yourself something is right or wrong) ... but the real kicker is the "Seamaster". The S is too early for the watch; the letters are slightly different sizes; and, the gap between the A and S is too big.

It's actually a really good (and not recent) redial ... but it's still a redial. So, I'm left with either replacing the dial with one that is correct; passing on the watch for what I paid (it wasn't unreasonable); or, keeping it to remind myself not to be a prat.

 

This is very helpful...I've been looking at these dials for years, and still can be fooled by a really good redial. Luckily, there aren't many of them out there.