Hello to everyone in the community. I have an Omega Chro 33.3 circa 1943. As you will see from the pictures, the reference number on the inside of the case back is not quite legible. When I acquired the watch I knew it was not a more valuable waterproof CK2077 and was comfortable with what I paid. That said, it would be nice to know the reference number. I am hoping that the community is able to provide a reference number for this watch as I am loathe to open the watch, or have a watch maker open the watch merely for the purposes of confirming the reference number. Maybe there is some guidance or a photo of the reference in the AJTT book?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

2393

 

Thank you so much for the feedback Cristos71. Do you think it’s a 2393 because you have seen this reference before or is it based on reading the case back picture that I posted? Thanks

 

There is only one reference of 33.3 with this case shape and it is the 2393

 

I’m not all to familiar with the differences in the various references. Is it the shape of the lugs and bezel or both that you focus on?
I noticed that you have been on the forum for over 10 years and 7k posts!

 

I’m pretty happy with this watch. The condition of the watch is consistent…dial, case, movement (which I believe is rhodium plated based on my research).

 

The very distinctive angled lugs are the giveaway. This case design is also used on a smaller 28.9 chrono reference which I can't remember and also for a jumbo 30T2, ref 2186.

 

But this is a redial isn’t it?

 

Thanks! Your input is valued and appreciated! I do see other Chro 33.3’s with angular lugs online with different reference numbers. Are there different versions of angular lugs? The angle starts halfway up the lug vs 2/3 up?

 

Thanks for asking Mark020. I have read many different opinions on this forum regarding other watches and questioning redial or not. It appears that the issue of redial or not can be extremely difficult to determine in some cases. After doing my own extensive research (layperson albeit) and also based on input from an accredited AJP/GIA, it appears to be 100% original and authentic.

 

I thought so too.

I am not an Omega expert, but a few details strike me as atypical for chronograph dials from this period. Firstly, the surface finishing. The silver-metallic appearance of the section where the hour markers are is not typical of two-tone dials. Secondly, the lack of space between the seconds/minutes scale and the telemeter scale is unusual. Thirdly, the width of the railroad tracks in the sub-dials looks too wide, I believe.

I would be curious to know what led you to conclude that the dial is original? Do you have photos of a similar, original dial for comparison?

Source of photo on the right: https://watchesbysjx.com/2021/09/omega-speedmaster-chronoscope.html

 

I'm fairly certain it is a redial

 

Jjen, thank you for your input. My I ask what you are basing your opinion on?

 

•May

 

Fist thing is that it lacks the fineness of original dials
Secondly also this overpaint on the 2-tone dial would never pass qa

 

I'd also say redial

 

Thank you for your observations and the link to the other watch. I can see what you mean by silver-metallic appearance. However, I think this is primarily due to the lighting conditions under which my picture was taken. Below is another picture of my watch taken where only the lightening has changed and it does not look metallic at all. I can tell you when you actually hold the watch in your hand it looks more similar to the picture you provided.


I agree that the lack of space between the seconds/minutes scale is unusual but there seem to be so many unique dials out there for the Chro 33.3. I have looked at a number of dials on-line that appear to be original due to the patina and they too have inconsistencies within the dial themselves (slight spacing differences for the railroad from one side around the 9 compared to the 3, some thicker lines etc). Maybe these very slight inconsistencies are to be expected considering these dials were painted by hand? They were the work of artists.


I have relied upon the advice of the AGP/GIA expert, who saw it in person and stated that it was original and authentic 100%. I have also shown it to a vintage watch expert who said it was a museum piece. I have looked at dozens of images and all dials appear to be unique in design. If someone in the community has a photo of the same dial it would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you for your comments SpeedB. In regards to lacking fineness, I think that is really a matter of taste. Having looked at lots of other CHRO's and holding this one in my hand, it is truly a stunner. Other's who have seen the watch agree...but this is all just personal opinion. The apparent overpaint does not show in person as it does in the photo. In the photo the lighting is at its brightest at the point that you magnified. I agree that there is some overpaint in that location nonetheless. That said, discrepancies or issues of exactness are prevalent in just about (if not all) dials that I have looked at. These dials were hand painted 80 years ago when they did not have modern day tools and techniques. They would never come close to the exactness of later watches to come. In terms of quality control...none of us know what would and would not be given a pass by Omega using 1943 standards. I doubt they would even know.

It is interesting to hear different opinions...and appreciated...thank you.