I am considering one Omega Seamaster 120 mtrs/400 ft, usually termed as Baby Ploprof model. It has a mesh bracelet, simple crown (without crown guards, if I remember correctly) at 3 and in nice condition. I request the forum to enlighten me on the following: 1. Why is it called 'Ploprof'? 2. Steel mesh bracelet has some four digit number (something like 1234) followed by '/237' (if i remember correctly. What does this numbering mean? Some limited production number? 3. Below that is 'SP'- what does this signify? 4. My watchmaker also tells me that its Cal 1011. While searching the net, I am able to get only Cal 1010 or 1012. One site gave the info that Cal 1011/1012 were chronometre grade. Is this Cal movement in this watch correct? 5. Which among the three Calibers are the most sought after? May I request the forum to help me out with my queries? Do pardon me if my queries seem too basic, uninitiated and uninformed. Thanks
1. PloProf stands for 'Plongeur Professionel' which is French for professional diver. The one you're interested in (the ST 166.250) is a 'baby brother' to the larger and earlier Seamaster 600 which was nicknamed PloProf. 2. The XXXX/YYY code is typical for a bracelet model number, where the X part signifies the model of the bracelet & clasp, while the Y part signifies the type of end links (that attach to the watch head). You'll want the 1247/237 (a 22mm shark mesh).
Ohhh! Wonder if the English word 'plunge' has its root in the French 'Plongeur'! Any help on other queries?
Cal 1011 seems to point to a watchco or a donated movement. Yes the cal 1011 is the chronometer grade 1010, but a baby ploprof would not have had that movement from some quick research although data seems to be thin on these and I may be wrong. My guess is that it's a watchco. Watchco in Australia made a few of these from parts.They had service cases/dial and hands, then found a donor movement from another watch and built these. Or it is a frankenwatch made up of parts from other watches. Either way this affects value, and an extract from the archives on the serial number of the watch will show the watch most likely as a constellation. Whats troubling is your statement of no crown guards though. There appears to be 3 cases for this watch and they all have crown guards. These watches are not cheap and you need to do a fair amount of research if you don't want to get burned.
I can try 3. Not sure what you mean. Does (SP) appear on the bracelet's clasp, inside a circle perhaps? Mine has (IAI) in a circle, and I've seen others with (JJJ). I've always assumed that this signifies a production facility/location of some sort, but that's really no more than a guess. 4. The 166.250 should have a caliber 1010, as can be seen here: http://www.omegawatches.com/planet-omega/heritage/vintage-details/14511/. In fact, on the same site, it can be seen that the only watches to carry caliber 1011 were Constellations and one dressy Seamaster from 1973. This leads me to believe that the movement is not original to the watch, and that in fact it might be a 'Watchco' Baby Ploprof that was put together from new old stock (albeit original) parts. This is not necessarily a problem, but if you were to order an extract from the archives using the serial number on your watch, you would find that it didn't emanate from a Baby Ploprof. 5. See #4. The most sought-after are original Baby Ploprofs that were actually produced by Omega (mind you that a 1010 movement in itself is no guarantee that the movement originally belonged to that, or even a, Baby PloProf). They're gorgeous watches. Can we see some pics? That would at least help to resolve point 4.
Hmm. Completely missed the 'no crown guards' bit. This leads me to believe we might actually be talking about a 166.177 Seamaster 'SHOM' (it sort of does have crown guards but they're really small), or even a 366.0858 which is sometimes mislabeled as a Baby Ploprof. Again, pics would help a lot
True, that occured to me also after I posted. While you were quoting my post, I was editing it to add: "or even a 366.0858 which is sometimes mislabeled as a Baby Ploprof". That seems to be a more common mistake (although it's actually more commonly mislabeled as a SHOM, possibly because they look more similar).
So, why are there no pictures in this thread? I never could understand how some n00b expects us to imagine the exact condition a watch is in. Boy, wouldn't it be terrible if the automatic self destruct option happened to this thread? I think the software is still programmed to start the countdown whenever there aren't pictures in posts asking for help like this. Besides, most of us can't think without pictures.
Good question. Here's what a Baby PloProf should look like - a 166.0250. This is an original 166.177 SHOM: ...and this is (probably) a WatchCo version (note the different hands): And this is a Seamaster 366.0858 that's often confused with the SHOM (similar angular case, but note the integrated bracelet) and sometimes with the Baby PloProf. P.S. I stole all these pics, and I have no regrets. None, I tells ya!
SHOM should not have ploprof hands... Here is my SHOM new (old) stock 166.0177... I still don't have an old one.. New stock baby ploprof 166.0250 It's called Baby ploprof because of the ploprof hands Vintage Baby ploprof 166.0250 Vintage 166.0251 aka 366.0858 also sometime called Baby Ploprof with integrated bracelet And the other very rare (and funny) "dress" version :
Correct, the one I posted was probably a watchco. They made them with two different style hands, but the style on yours are indeed those that came on the SHOM originally (see: http://wornandwound.com/shom-or-sham-omegas-200-meter-diver-from-the-70s/). I had since added a pic of an original to my post, indeed with hands like the ones on yours. I find it somewhat unlikely that is the primary reason, because those aren't actually PloProf hands. They're similar, but the PloProf ones are proportioned differently (width of hour hand, shape of the lume plots etc.) and they're all orange/white (no black stubbies). Ironically, the incorrect ones on the Watchco example I posted, probably are NOS PloProf hands. P.S. You own all those? What a fantastic collection!
Great many replies while I slept! (Time diff in India). There is a question why there are no pics yet. Valid question and I must answer if I solicit help. Watch is with a pawnbroker, having been pawned longtime back. I dont know about other places but here people donot let you take pictures unless the deal is confirmed. Also, it is in a different city than the one I have moved to recently. On my last visit, he showed me the watch and I had no clue what it was (or that it was called Ploprof!!). I saw the clasp, bracelet, dial and tried to memorise all I could of the watches (he had few others and rare ones like one Zodiac Chrono with Tachemetre and Pulsations, Orfina Military (or was it Corfina??), a few names I hadnt heard but black chrono dials in Panda/reverse Panda looked good). When I came back from his shop, I ebayed with "Omega Seamaster 120 metres 400 ft" and from amongst the results, I knew that it was called Ploprof! About crownguards, I am reasonably sure that such thick and elongated crownguards were certainly not there, atbest it may have been just a small one. Also, full orange handwas not there, slightly yellow or whitish. But dial I remember.
A lot of watches on eBay come out of India. There is a term for some of them "Mumbai Special" these are watches presented as one thing but are pieced together from many watches and have little or no value to someone that knows these watches. Baby Plo Profs are very desirable rare and valuable. Without pictures no one here will tell you to buy it. With the wrong version of the movement and no crown guards I would stay away from it.
Thanks, I wasn't aware this was aka 366.0858. Why does it have two reference numbers? I have one for sale in the Private Sales section.
I would certainly post the pics once I buy it. I have a few points to make, which are just logical points, not points from 'position of knowledge'. 1. Watch is a pawned watch from times back. For a franken watch or modified watch, much gain is to be had by selling off, rather than pawning. 2. If 1010 and 1012 Cal were used in Baby Ploprofs and 1012 is an advancement over 1011, then commonsense would have me reasonably expect that 1011 could well have been used, as its previous and subsequent versions were used. 3. If someone wanted to make a 'Mumbai watch', it wasnt difficult to get hold of Cal 1010/1012, if intention was to deceive. 4. I donot remember crown guards so if it was there, it was a small one. 5. The fat hand was yellowish/whitish, not orange. 6. I distinctly remember patina on the hand and some 'dirt' in the 'rectangular cap' on second hand. So it is old. The watch looked like these two listings, with orange hands NOT orange but whitish/yellowish http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-Vintag...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network http://www.ebay.com/itm/Omega-Seama...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network Problem is only when I buy it, can I take the Omega's archival extract!!
The 1012 is not better then the 1011. All three fit into the same case though. Think of the 1011 as the luxury version of a 1010, like a base model car and the 1011 is luxury level of the same car with better materials. The 1012 is like the next years model it looks the same and might share some parts but is different. Specifically the 1011 is the chronometer grade version of the 1010 and used in higher end watches. It might have some better material or just more advanced testing and tuning, I'm not going to research that, all I know is Omega advertised it as meeting chronometer standards (legal term) which most watches are not held to. Many watches with a 1011 are not worth much more then a 1010 watch, so thinking that 1010 or 1012 would have been used is flawed reasoning. Many made up watches use movements that are functionally the same but wrong. The intention is not exactly to deceive but to take a pile of parts worth nothing and build something that is worth something. Maybe it was a ploprof that had water damage and the movement was ruined, and a constellation had a trashed case and dial. Combine the parts and you have something that could sell for more then the cost of the parts if someone does not do their research. But has greatly reduced collector value, which will tend to be the main buyer if you try to sell it, and they will do their research. Or you could not disclose and sell it to someone that has not researched Omega watches. You did your research and know a 1011 is wrong. You send the serial to Omega and I can pretty much promise you Omega will say the watch is a Constellation not a Seamaster.
Good thread, I found it bit difficult to find the information about both these watches, somehow they are not so popular like the other vintage dive watches are. @uwsearch @dialstatic Do you know production dates of SHOM (166.0177) and Baby-Ploprof (166.0251)?
Thank you. I should have been more specific.. do we know the range, within what years these models were in a production?
