Case and pushers original. Hands correct style but mixed from two examples, dial may have been original but it's reprinted. Avoid.
I thought the dial was ok, but some parts of the movement are well aged and others appear in mint condition. Does seem to point to a put-together.
I wonder how many "experts" here talk rubbish This is a pristine example throughout. There is no mix of hands - I can´t see any The movement is also OK What is assumed to be put together with the movement is easily explained: The plates of these movements were not nickel or rhodium plated but silvered. And as we all know silver tends to discolor through chemical aging (most likely H²S gas) which makes it become darker. The steel parts keep bright - therefore the movement looks uneven in colour. Dial is a perfectly preserved example. Often it is better to say nothing when you have nothing to say...
Ok ... so I'm not an expert on these. Here are my redial red flashing lights. 1 Gap and off center print on Subdials. 2 Gap : Tachy scale and bezel. 3 chrono hand overlaps tachy scale. Agree that "too good to be true" is not in itself a warning sign. Plenty of nice original dials out there. I want to be wrong but there it is.
I'm happy if I'm wrong about the movement and right about the dial! I didn't know about the silvering of parts of the movement so that's a useful piece of information.
I hold to my POV...This is a redial. A good one but re dial non the less. Perhaps a medico custom dial?
Well there you go. You came to OF to ask a question. Folks took time and responded. And then you decide to be rude. That reflects on you. Old story here I'm afraid.
Please don't be afraid! I don't ask and I don't need to ask anything! I do apologize in advance, but if you translate my nick from italian, you will understand it's just a question I detest the ignorance!
It is probably a language-thing, but please understand that you do come across as a bit rude in your comments on Larry S' competence or lack thereof. There have been a few instances lately where less experienced members acted very ungratefully when hearing other members' opinions, which is probably why we are quick to label your actions as such. Hope to have a good relationship
When I gave my first assessment of this watch, it may have come off as hasty or unsubstantiated, and for that I am sorry. But the tone of the responses on this and other threads of late are simply exhausting. Firstly, @mac_omega, we have had such pleasant interactions in the past, and surely you know I don't claim to be an expert. I respect your opinion immensely and recognize your depth of knowledge. I also understand how you can be rightly irritated with members jumping to conclusions or giving out half-baked information. The fact is some members offer answers to inquiries in the spirit of being helpful, sometimes inadvertently doing harm. The incomplete inking on the telemetre scale is what drew my eye, and would prevent me from wanting to purchase this watch. I have looked at dozens of examples of 33.3 over the last day and to my eye, and in my opinion, it is not up to Omega standards. I can't find a printing defect such as this to point to on another example. I joined this forum to learn about watches, to discuss and to enjoy the process, I hope OF continues to sustain that kind of environment.
Fake news! If you enlarge the last picture, you will realize it is not a printing defect (originally, fonts 10-9-8 were complete), but just a "time effect" in an almost 70 years old original Omega dial. So, please, don't "spit judgments"!
Hello guys, It was not my intention to insult anybody - so if somebody felt offended personally I stand here to apologize. Maybe I had been a bit grumpy that Sunday. But I often wonder about the hasty shots when stating redial here on the OF. Even the smallest "fault" causes immediate classification as a redial. What many members forget: these are watches 70+ years old and many of them were produced during the war time. Final quality control was not so severe as today, the tolerances allowed were huge on these early vintage watches. I have observed sloppy work even on NOS dialed watches of that era. It makes sense to be a nitpicker on dials fom the 60ies to 70ies (and recent dials of course) as the production and QC was much better then, you must be more generous on these early watches though. Back to this particular watch/dial. I am convinced the dial is all original and not redialed. The partly absence of paint is not result of a sloppy redial, it is just loss of paint over the decades - maybe a result of an unfortunate cleaning attempt... Badly centered sub dials are quite common on old dials. The print on the dial is correctly done and it is so finely executed that nobody of the dial-restorers I know (and where I had redials done) is able to do this work. This is the most important clue for me. So if I can not covince you here I can live with that... I would buy this watch in a whim if it was priced in a range I can afford... have a nice day and lets stay friends erich
I know nothing about the dial, but I do know that the buckle is about 25 years younger than the watch. If anyone cares, gatorcpa