Omega 2657/2494 questions

[Plees]

Hi all,
Recently I have bought above watch for parts. Most probably redial, the reason it was cheap .
But still questions keep lingering. There are some oddities that I can’t explain. Like why the heck someone crossed out the original cal. nr. and replaced it with 342. It makes no sense to me. Also: the 12 markers are placed too wide apart?
The script on the dial looks original but a little bit fat?
Why the double ref engraving in the caseback?
I’ve seen period dials with Swiss and Swiss made both appearing on the dial, but never somewhat straight?
Previous “watchmaker” also abused the movement I guess, considering the amount of scratches on the mainplate.

Anything else someone wants to add that I have overlooked? Thanks for joining in!

edit: title should have been 2657/2494

Edited: Aug 25, 2022

 

[seekingseaquest]

Dial is very much not original. Hopefully it was very cheap..

 

[Plees]

seekingseaquest

Dial is very much not original. Hopefully it was very cheap..

Yes off course, like I mentioned in my post

 

[Pvt-Public]

Plees

Why the double ref engraving in the caseback?

Nothing unusual about that 2 models can use the same case. My Seamaster the 168.022 Chronometer movement, 166.028 non-chronometer movement.

 

[MtV]

Plees

Like why the heck someone crossed out the original cal. nr. and replaced it with 342.

Plees

Why the double ref engraving in the caseback?

I'm not the one who molested it, so I can only guess. But I think the answer to both questions above comes from the same topic. So, 2657 and 2494 use the same case, just that 2657 is the sub-second version, 2494 the center-second version. The case back was double-stamped and used for both references, there are many examples for this practice and it's quite common.
My assumption would be that the previous owner saw the 2657 in the caseback, maybe thought since the sub-reference -1 is right behind it that must be the right reference for his watch. So he googled the ref, found it's supposed to have a cal. 342 (which is the movement for the sub-second version) and in what can only be descriped as a very desperate attempt tried to "correct" the movement number, not knowing it's actually the right one for his watch.

Plees

The script on the dial looks original but a little bit fat?

Mmh I'd politely disagree. +1 on @seekingseaquest s comment, 100% a redial and not a good one I'm afraid.

 

[Plees]

There is nothing to disagree upon I know it is a redial, just wanted to know that the font used in itself is time correct.
Thanks for your explanation regarding the double reference. Your suggestion regarding the cal. nr. sounds plausible.

 

[MtV]

Plees

There is nothing to disagree upon I know it is a redial, just wanted to know that the font used in itself is time correct.
Thanks for your explanation regarding the double reference. Your suggestion regarding the cal. nr. sounds plausible.

Regarding font alone, not print qualtiy or thickness, the Seamaster isnt too bad. I find the text on the top half of the dial much more telling.