Hi. I am considering purchasing my first Omega watch and need some advice on correct price on this one and any other comments are appreciated. Is this a rare model? I cannot see any scratches on the glass, is that normal after so many years? Does anything else look original?

info: 168.024 – 166.010 SP. Hallmark HF, Huguenin Frères, Le Locle

28737497, caliber 564

From Omegas vintage page:

Seamaster
Gents' leather strap
Dimensions: Ø35 mm
Reference
ST 168.0024
International collection
1969 - 1972
Movement
Type: Automatic chronometer certified
Caliber number: 564
Created in 1965
24 jewels
Central sweep-second hand
Functions
Date
Case
Stainless steel
Case back
Screw-in
Dial
Metal, with "index" hour markers and metal "dauphine" hands
Crystal
Armoured hesalite
Bracelet
Leather
Water resistance
30 meters

View attachment 37699 View attachment 37700 View attachment 37698 View attachment 37697 View attachment 37696 View attachment 37693

View attachment 37718 View attachment 37734 View attachment 37741

 

I upload the pictures once more, something went wrong the first time.

 

Have I posted this one in a wrong place in the forum since nobody have a comment to my post?
I have tried to find information for this one on the internet, but it is rarely seen for sale.
Does anyone know if this is a rare model? The owner says everything is original Omega parts and it was serviced in 2013 by a watchmaker i England called Paul Mason.
The seller wants approx. 1350 USD for the watch.
Is that a faire price?

 

I would say that while this model should fetch that sort of price, that is a little high in current market conditions. Maybe $11-1200 at the very top. That seems low for such nice and rare watch--chronometer Seamasters from this era are quite scarce--but vintage Omega dress models are still undervalued (IMO).
I would also add that usually when an Omega has luminous hands it has luminous dots on the dial, as well. I don't really know how hard and fast that rule is but more often than not that's the case. In this example, I can't really make out any lume dots on the dial and I would expect the hands to be black filled. Either way, though, that's a very nice example and if you like it enough to keep it for a while it could be worth a splurge. I feel that more collectors will come to appreciate these in future and they're not that easy to find in excellent condition.
Good luck,
T.

 

I too think that the hands may be incorrect. Shouldn't they be baton hands in keeping with the dial?

 

I think $1350 is several hundred too high. I don't like the varying colors of the movement parts, and I'm not sure if that dial or hands are original - either might be service replacements. Regardless, even with the BoR bracelet and a proper service, I couldn't see paying that much.

 

This is the closest example of the moving parts of a caliber 564 I could find on the net : http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&&2uswk&Omega_564
It does look pretty similar to this one?
Does anyone have pictures of a correct hand?

 

Its definitely a 564 movement-but Dennis is pointing out the bridge and rotor are a different colour to the rest of the movement and therefore may have started life in a different watch. Who knows what may have prompted the switch and that's before you ask questions about the hands.

 

I like that you guys are very purist but this seems a little picky to me. What difference could it really make if the rotor bridge has been swapped out due to service needs? They do wear out after all. The base plate says 564 so the adjustment nomenclature is appropriate. It cannot really have any effect of the performance of the watch provided it has been installed correctly. Soooo... in a perfect world would we like every watch to be completely original in every aspect? Of course. But would a different color rotor bridge really bother me that much so long as it seemed all correct for a 564? Not unless it was a display back, I guess.
I think high standards are great until they are sort of being set a bit unrealistically. A 50-year-old watch is very often likely to have had some adjustments over the years at service, especially to the autowind mechanism on an automatic. Even the hands wouldn't really bother me that much, as you can still buy a black filled pair for 35 bucks at Ofrei.com.
So yes, for the price being asked the watch is not quite up to scratch. That being said, it's still a very, very nice watch for daily wear if not museum display, IMO.
Just my 2 cents & best,
T.

 

It might not bother you. It does bother some of us to varying degrees. It also affects value as the deep pocket collectors won't 'go Ashley' on something they deem less than perfectly original. What's unrealistic to you is a defining principle of another man's incredible museum quality collection. I could show you a nice group of "drawer watches" (as though they were left in a drawer for decades after a couple wearings) from my meager collection - and I'm small potatoes compared to some of the guys here.

As long as a watch is properly described and no attempt is made to pass it off as something more than it is, I have no problem with replacement parts - especially on a regular wearable example.

 

I have no real problem with the bridge, it may have just worn a different colour. I do have an issue with the hands containing luminous material, especially considering there are no lume dots on the dial and there is no T either side of Swiss Made

 

If I wound up having work done on a movement and consequently different colours, id be ok with that - but it tends too put me off buying as it at least suggests the watch may not be the lightly worn, troublefree example I would be hoping for. Its not a huge deal, but it is on my checklist - and if I were selling one, I'd expect less...

 

You can't really tell from a photograph too much about the condition of the movement plating, you have to examine it in person. My movements often come out all sorts of crazy shades when I photograph them, even when I'm being really careful with light sources and colour temperature. Yellow hues, purple hues, matt finish when they are in fact shiny, you name it. When I look at them with my eyes, they look fine. I think that it is something to do with subtle variations in the plating at the factory which the camera picks up but the eye does not.

 

As someone who takes more than a hundred photos of movements per day, I can relate to this...

 

From the Omega database it says this on the referance ST 168.0024:
Dial: Metal, with "index" hour markers and metal "dauphine" hands.
http://www.omegawatches.com/planet-omega/heritage/vintage-omegas/vintage-watches-database?ref=20589

Are the photos on this one showing metal "dauphine" hands?

 

Yep, those are dauphine hands alright. But there are many varieties of dauphine hands . . .

 

Finaly I found a photo of the same model showing original hands, before and after some service. Looks like they are the black filled ones.
In the Omega database it look like the hands are completely black. Might be the bad quality of the photo.

Thank you all for shearing knowledge and giving me some questions to ask for when going into further discussions with the seller of this watch.