Well it didn't come with that blistering no but otherwise it looks pretty original. Funnily enough I have the no date version of that from the same year, and mine is blistered also...
It all looks original, but the condition is not as it left the factory.
Thanks ,the cover on the inside, I don't know if it matches the caliber numbering: 14393 10SC
I have doubts about whether the case number 14393 10SC is correct for a caliber 176XXX... the higher the serial number, the higher the caliber number?
Thank
The caliber number is 561. 17.6M is the serial number. I don't understand your question, but the watch looks fine.
I assume the 61 SC series will have a larger caliber series than a 10C.
Is a 176XXX serial number on a 14393 10C case correct?
As far as I know, people have not archived detailed information about the production runs of individual references.
I assume the 61 SC series will have a larger caliber series than a 10C.
Is a 176XXX serial number on a 14393 10C case correct?
Podría ser el ángulo de las fotos, pero parece que el segundero se extiende un poco más allá de los marcadores de minutos, lo que sería incorrecto para esta referencia. Pero tal vez sea una ilusión óptica y lo dejaré en manos de otros en caso de que me equivoque @Dan S
@Jorgehernando
I think the confusion here is in the understanding of the ‘series’ numbers in the case back.
For reasons only known to them, Omega changed their additional ‘series’ case back reference numbers.
The ‘10’ refers, sequentially, to the 10th in a series of that reference of a watch whereas ‘61’ refers to the year of first production of that iteration of the reference.
Of course, just to confuse things further, a short while later Omega changed their reference numbering system altogether.
could be the angle of the photos, but it appears the seconds hand is maybe extending slightly beyond the minute markers, which would be incorrect for this reference. but perhaps it’s an optical illusion and will defer to others in case I’m mistaken @Dan S
