Forums Latest Members
  1. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Jun 27, 2013

    Posts
    12,204
    Likes
    15,717
    100% agree with you Tony. To my knowledge, the oldest Omega with a signed crown would be the Centenary from 1948. I'm sure there were others from the same year with a signed crown.

    Not going to debate the sales issue here as it seems Mr. Darlor has hung himself with his comments.
    gatorcpa
     
  2. ulackfocus Jun 27, 2013

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,974
    1946. Omega introduced the Centenary, albeit without the insignia engraved on the caseback, two years before their actual 100th anniversary. To my knowledge, all the reference 2500's came with logo crowns.

    I can't believe I got to correct the InvestiGator! :eek: This usually works the other way.
     
  3. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Jun 27, 2013

    Posts
    12,204
    Likes
    15,717
    I'd need further proof on that one, D.

    Even the OVD shows 1948 as the date introduced for the Ref. 2500.

    http://www.omegawatches.com/spirit/history/vintage-omegas/vintage-watches-database?ref=14464

    Not that the OVD is the last word on the subject. Plenty of errors there.

    Something you found in AJTT, maybe?
    gatorcpa
     
  4. ulackfocus Jun 27, 2013

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,974
    Both 2500 Centenaries I owned had serial numbers corresponding with 1946. So do a few of the 2500's around here. I know that isn't conclusive evidence since it's possible that calibers were cased and sold to dealers a year or two later, but there are an aweful lot from 1946 around.

    I'm going to pull out AJTT now and look. Hold please!


    ...........



    .....



    ............................


    No mention of anything for the Centenary before 1948 in AJTT. There are 3 pages about the various references (2499, 2500, engravings, etc) and it even shows the shiny silver box, but everything says 1948 was the first year. I've seen TOO many 30.10's with 1946 serial numbers for them to be frankens though, so I'd imagine they were later cased movements or the charts we have for serial numbers are a little off.
     
  5. X350 XJR Vintage Omega Aficionado Jun 28, 2013

    Posts
    12,619
    Likes
    29,918
    Found this in my newly acquired copy of Omega Saga.

    Caption indicates introduction in 1948.

    Can we move all the posts on this subject to their own thread?

    IMG_3638.JPG
     
    Giff2577 likes this.
  6. cicindela Steve @ ΩF Staff Member Jun 28, 2013

    Posts
    15,047
    Likes
    23,790
    Not sure which others you mean, can you point them out. If you mean the silver box thread, I think those should stand alone.
     
  7. X350 XJR Vintage Omega Aficionado Jun 28, 2013

    Posts
    12,619
    Likes
    29,918
    No, you've got it here.
     
  8. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Jun 28, 2013

    Posts
    12,204
    Likes
    15,717
    Just for reference, my Ref. 2517 chronometer has an 11.5M serial number which would indicate a 1948-9 production, but Omega told me it was delivered to the dealer in July 1950. So a 1 to 2 year difference from the dating chart dates to actual delivery is not unusual, especially for chronometers that are independently certified. That testing takes several weeks to complete, which would add to any normal lag time.

    The Omega dating charts show when the serial numbers were assigned, not when a movement was assembled, tested, cased or sold.

    So I feel comfortable with the 1948 introduction date on the Centenary.
    gatorcpa
     
  9. X350 XJR Vintage Omega Aficionado Jun 28, 2013

    Posts
    12,619
    Likes
    29,918
    I completely agree.
     
  10. ulackfocus Jun 28, 2013

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,974
    I'm convinced. It's not just Omega that does things that way either. JLC, Longines, and AP are the same way to my experience.