I'm a new member with some admittedly newbie questions regarding a Seamster DeVille. To frame my questions, I have added some images of the watch in question. First of all, it is my understanding that this watch is a late 70's model with the 1020 movement. However, I had read on this forum that both "Seamaster" and "DeVille" only appeared together on the dial up to the late 60's, after which "DeVille" was only feature once this became a separate collection in the 1970's. This leads to my main question to the forum members -- is this watch in its original form or does it consist of parts cobbled together from models from different years? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

Hmm looks real but my search shows no other examples with deville on the dial.

 

Google search images for Omega 165.0020 to see earlier (1960s) dials with both Seamaster and De ville (like yours). As you have likely learned, most of the 1020 cal seamasters have Seamaster or Seamaster Automatic in that area of the dial. I have yet to find one like yours with De Ville on the dial.

 

The date wheel looks aged - much more so than the dial.

I don't know anything about this model - that is just an observation - that would be a red-flag for me.

 

Why google a watch made a decade before?

 

Looks like a redial to me.

 

+1 on the redial.

 

I sent a destroyed Seamaster to International Dial Co and it came back Seamaster DeVille. $.02

 

To see what dial they were copying...

 

166.0209 is listed in the Omega Vintage data base as a Seamaster DeVille. Lets not all jump to a redial so quickly.

 

That exact dial is on other watches with that reference . It's a pretty different dial then what would have been done 10 years earlier.

My search showed that exact dial but not with Deville. It's possible that Deville was used in one smaller markets. Italy, Germany, Japan, or South America for example. Or it could be early versions had it this way. Omega was experimenting a lot due to the quartz crisis at this point.

It's a pretty watch and the fonts appear correct. It makes little sense for someone to add Deville and change nothing else.

 

So if it is a beautifully untouched hands, dial, and case. Why put an aged date wheel inside a pristine watch? It is nice looking. I just say don't pay for a museum piece because there is something hinky going on.

 

Photomat needs to make the decision if the FRI and 22 wheels match. The light maybe different on the two. Can,t make that decision with his photo. Here is the link. to Omega 166.0209
https://www.omegawatches.com/planet-omega/heritage/vintage-details/14981/

 

The minute markers misalign with hour markers right there.

 

I don't have a problem with the different date wheel colour - some materials age quicker than others. I do have a problem with the wonky minute marker track, the minute hand that looks of a piece with everything else yet is too short (even though the second hand is not), and the generally flat, lacklustre dial finish that just doesn't look right somehow. So my vote is for a redial.

 

Where did you see DeVille on that page?

 

TNTwatch, the picture on Omega's web sight shows the 166.0290. That picture of the watch has, Seamaster and DeVille on the dial. Did you actually go to the URL?

 

Did you actually look at the picture? I looked at that picture before I even read your post in this thread.

 

SORRY, My 70 year old eyes failed me or maybe I read what I wanted too.