Hi all,
first post, so before i get to my question, thought i would introduce myself a bit. completely new to the world of watches. my watch of choice for most of my adult life is a timex/casio digital watch. bullet proof, multi-functional and cheap. over time, even though i have acquired several nice watches through gifts and inheritance, i almost always wore the digital . my favorite non digital is the gold longines , a heirloom passed down from grandfather-father-me. i really like its elegant simplicity. it fits well on my wrist and is very comfortable. not ostentatious. i wear it for more formal events. the rolex was my dads special watch. its also a nice piece, but a little thick and heavy for me to wear for a extended period of time. perhaps changing the band, but thats how my dad liked it, so i keep it as is. never really gave the watches much thought, but for some reason, a couple of months ago, i started looking at watches on the computer. i guess i was curious about what makes a rolex a premium watch, and eventually i found the seamaster chronograph circa late 1960's. to be honest, i was completely ignorant of omega as a brand. anyway, i ended up buying a 1968 seamaster chronograph with 861 movement. just received it today. i really like the aesthetic of the watch, and it fits quite nicely on my wrist. the lugs are a bit stiff to pressing but work fine. my concerns are:

1) i think everything is authentic, but maybe not original?
2) the movement inside the case rattles and moves a little bit if i shake the watch. when i hold the crown everything seem stable. i can move the dial slightly by moving the crown. something is loose and im hopeful it is not a big fix.

i have included photographs- my first attempt at watch photography- tougher than i thought to get decent photos. hopefully these are good enough. im not sure if i should try to remove the case to take photos of the movement. any thought and comments would be appreciated.

 

Welcome to the forum.

Your pics have not uploaded! Did you use the ‘Add Phots’ button/box?

 

Hi and welcome to the forum. After you click ADD PHOTOS and select the file to upload you need to wait until the bar gets to 100% and then shortly you'll see INSERT PHOTO. Click that to attach the photo. You'll then see it in the message box.

 

dont see the photos in the post. trying again... View attachment 868350 View attachment 868350 View attachment 868353 CH] View attachment 868353

 

geez, very sorry about the photos. somehow i uploaded all the photos, even the crappy ones. my apologies.

 

Hit Options, then Edit and you should be able to delete the ones you want removed.

 

thanks queriver, tried to edit but it thinks im trying to spam. will leave as is, and know better for next time. thanks

 

Welcome to the forum - this thread would be a good place to start https://omegaforums.net/threads/not-all-321s-are-speedmasters.22332/ .

In no way am I an expert, and there are many eminently qualified forum members who’ll be along soon, but start by comparing your dial, crown, etc. with these other Seamaster chronographs. Also as it’s a vintage watch it’s time for a service (which will also fix the loose movement, etc.)

Love the Diastar, any chance of a better photo of that?

 

i really like your longines, similar case and bracelet to my grandfather's ulysses nardin (top row, 2nd from right)

your rado looks like a tv case, rather than the typical diastar shape.
congrats on a nice collection.

 

Hello, and welcome to the forum! No need to apologize over pictures. An easy trick is to head outdoors in daylight to a shady spot, hold the subject watch in one hand and take pictures with the other, making sure your camera focuses on the watch.

 

hi all, thanks for alll your responses. Rob#1, that diastar is a fun one. i really like the coloration of the dial. the shape of the dial and frame is very sharp, dont want to get smacked with the edges of that thing. from sometime in the early seventies, i think.Also, thanks very much for the link. fantastic.
Joe Band, yes, very similar look indeed, very sophisticated .

 

Sorry to be the bearer of some bad news.

Hope you didn’t pay too much for the Omega, it’s a got some dial issues ( hard to tell as a lot of distorting due to crystal and dial moving around between pictures you have taken ) with worn Pushers and crown and probably missing case screws.

It deserves a trip to the Watchmaker pronto.

 

hi Standy,
well , i am bummed to learn this. i have been looking at probably several dozens of photos of these types of seamasters online here (fakes and bad redial threads) and the internet. while i can see the obvious aesthetic differences of legit pieces, i can hardly ever see what the fake or bad redial clues are (i can now spot the sharpie numbered dial however

one thing that is frustrating for me as a novice trying to learn is that most photos of bad redial or fakes are photos without accompanying explanation of what is wrong, leaving me to guess the problem. historically, i am not a good guesser.

when you say "its got some dial issues" it would be extremely helpful to learn what those issues are. i am in contact with the seller and this would be constructive in my discussions with him. i am also happy to retake some photos of the dial .

as to paying to much - i dont have any idea. i paid $1100. whats you opinion? thanks for your input

 

At $1100 don't let anyone tell you that you overpaid. I've seen just the movement sell close to that on ebay.

Your watch needs to be serviced. Take it to a watchmaker with an omega parts account, the replacement pushers and crown arent expensive, and if needed they can replace e the crystal, movement screws, etc.

It will come back solidly fitted in the case and looking imminently better. It will also keep better time, wind smoother, etc.

I also do not think it's a redial. That dial looks pretty good to me with the dial and hand lume all looking like they still have aged tritium. Lots of people will chime in with opinions about the font used for seamaster. In my opinion, it is legit. Others will likely feel differently, but to me, the lume condition tells the story and I think it's fine, though not perfect as there is some age spotting.

 

Take and post one clear photo front on. ( a lot above have distorted edges due to the angle and the crystal. )

 

hi Standy,
one clear photo. thanks

 

Here are a couple from around the same period to compare.



I don’t have one that’s the smaller cased version like yours. Obviously, yours is a different dial because it’s a slightly smaller dial than either of the two I’ve posted.

Gold filled 321 Seamasters go for cheap because once the plating starts wearing through, the piece becomes much less desirable.

 

Hi Claven2,
appreciate your opinion. i have seen so many of these types of seamaster with slightly different dials and hands, its beyond me at this point to appreciate what is legit original, legit authentic but not original, bad authentic, or just plain fake. really makes one value those educated. thanks to omegaforums.

 

hi Airansun,
well both of those examples are quite different from mine. the hour things on your examples are the same, mine is different. the placement of the "s" and "r" of seamaster in space relative to the subdials are the same on yours but different on mine. but the hands all look the same. in the world of omega seamaster, what does this mean? are your 2 examples and mine just 2 different true pieces with slightly different aesthetic, or is this evidence that mine is a bad redial, or worse?

its funny, i just got the watch, but i already feel kind of attached to it. its similar feeling to when we adopted the rescue dog. if something is wrong, i want to take it to the watch veterinarian to fix it.

 

also, this is not a 321, this is a 861 cal