lucreative
·Hi. Been a little, but back for some discerning advice. I have a few gold Omegas, but I realized that I do not have a classic Omega dress watch. Meaning a smaller 35mm-36mm, thinner, manual wind, solid gold, sub-seconds Omega, and vintage.
So I discovered 2, mainly due to the look of the lugs, and wanted some guidance on what some OF peeps prefer.
The first Omega OT 2390 is a "Calatrava" ?, which I already have in my hands. I only saw one other example and they both were engraved by "H.A.D.I.R." as a 25 years service watch. It's 35mm, manual wind Cal 266, supposedly made in 1955, but spans from the 1940s. Solid 18k. But engraved.
The second is an Omega 2895 "Tresor" ? Same similar specs, 35mm, manual wind 267, solid 18k. Also made in the 1950s, but a newer model. Lugs are slightly different from the OT 2390, but beefier? This watch is a more common Omega dress watch, but recognizable. Not engraved.
Which do you prefer by looks and uniqueness? The first one is engraved and has a bit of patina on the dial. Or is there another option someone can share? I would prefer to only have one.
So I discovered 2, mainly due to the look of the lugs, and wanted some guidance on what some OF peeps prefer.
The first Omega OT 2390 is a "Calatrava" ?, which I already have in my hands. I only saw one other example and they both were engraved by "H.A.D.I.R." as a 25 years service watch. It's 35mm, manual wind Cal 266, supposedly made in 1955, but spans from the 1940s. Solid 18k. But engraved.
The second is an Omega 2895 "Tresor" ? Same similar specs, 35mm, manual wind 267, solid 18k. Also made in the 1950s, but a newer model. Lugs are slightly different from the OT 2390, but beefier? This watch is a more common Omega dress watch, but recognizable. Not engraved.
Which do you prefer by looks and uniqueness? The first one is engraved and has a bit of patina on the dial. Or is there another option someone can share? I would prefer to only have one.
Edited:


