Community Stories

Omega CHRO 33.3 Reference Number

OllieOnTheRocks
Posts
1,447
Likes
3,018
P PocketOmega
Given that vintage watch collecting and grading, when compared to other collections (e.g. art, autos, sports cards which have more refined criteria), is rather in its infancy, perhaps some resolution standards can be encouraged on the forum for posters when submitting photos and requesting comments on originality (redial, movement etc.). Particularly given that assessments online are made without a watch being in hand.

I appreciate your point, and this is why our discussions in these groups are often the best place to try and ascertain a watches authenticity. Sometimes it is clearly obvious, such as the example you have provided us, other times more open to debate. My opinion though, upon observation of Mark's watch is that it is original, the bleeding I have seen on numerous different models and different dial designs going into subdials and small second dials etc. It is not unheard of. Mark's watch also has a level of wear that I would not expect on a watch that was redialed only 20-30 years ago. There is deterioration on the sharp edges of the subdials, and if this was planned by the restorer, then that man was clearly an artist with which I wish I had in my back pocket.
 
P
Posts
34
Likes
2
I don't know. MSNWatch said that many of the dials in AJTT are redials and shouldn't be used as the gold standard. It seems like the jury is out on Mark's watch. In the other threads discussing Mark's watch, in particular watchyouwant's comments, were pretty strong; he has real concerns as to originality.
Also, assuming AJTT is original, I noticed what appears to be a significant difference in font thickness for the black numbers on the AJTT subdial (thicker) and Mark's subdial (thinner) in the picture posted by Mark in one of the 2020 threads and seen below.
left-index-jpg.1013559
 
Mark020
Posts
6,498
Likes
10,178
What exactly do you try to achieve? You post your 33.3, I tell you it is a redial. Other posters agree. Then you try to come up with various other examples to do what exactly? And now you are trying to question my watch?
 
P
Posts
34
Likes
2
I thought I was quite clear about what I am trying to achieve. Again, I respect the forum's opinion on my watch. I am happy with my watch. My posts are no longer about my watch. Rather, as I said, I want to generally learn more about the process and methodology used on the forum. So, this thread is no longer about my watch. In that sense, it is not beating a dead horse as I think that Mark's watch turns out to be an excellent test in trying to understand how determinations are made on the forum. An excellent test because the forum was questioning your watch and there are divergent views as to its originality. Mark I thought you would be okay with comments on your watch because you yourself said that you can't expect to flaunt a watch on this forum and not expect comments. Or is it that you are okay with comments on your watch so long as they are positive? And to me, I thought the thicker font that I was seeing above was material. It is not clear to me which one is a redial.
 
seekingseaquest
Posts
2,771
Likes
6,879
The forum does not make decisions. People make decisions. While people on this forum tend to know vintage Omegas better than the average person, because everyone is different, everyone will have different opinions and methods. There is no rule book, and there is no “god” of Omega watches. Everyone is correct sometimes and incorrect sometimes.

Your thread is about your watch, so people assume you are asking for the purpose of evaluating your watch. If you want to evaluate @Mark020’s watch, it sounds like there’s a thread on that so maybe that’s best there. Or if you want to discuss methods of evaluating, there are also threads on that, or you could also create another one. But for me, it’s confusing trying to have that conversation here.
 
P
Posts
34
Likes
2
That you for your comments seekingseaquest. I will take them into account on future threads.

This thread however got off track right out of the gate. I already own the watch and was merely asking the forum (I know; people) for my reference number and nothing more. But I guess the forum/people couldn't resist asking the Redial question. If it wasn't Mark I am quite sure someone else would have. The Forum Vintage Posting Guide in item 4 says to "Let us know whether this is a watch you ALREADY own or a watch you are CONSIDERING purchasing, as generally a watch someone already owns will be treated in a more gentle fashion, while a watch that is "under consideration" should be assessed with a more critical eye".

https://omegaforums.net/threads/vintage-omega-posting-guide.383/

This rule was essentially recognized by iamvr who posted earlier in this thread:

"However, the OP never asked for an opinion on the dial, only the reference number. So should we even bring this topic up and make an owner feel bad about a watch he/she previously liked? Personally, I would say, no, unless the watch is clearly intended for sale (to protect the buyer), which doesn't seem to be the case here."

So, I tried to turn the conversation away from the redial issue (which the forum/people dealt with) and make it into a learning experience but posters kept coming back to a question I never asked. And put me on the defensive.

I will use the forum in the future but I doubt I will ever post a picture of a watch that I already own again. I can more fully appreciate this meme (thanks to bgrisso for the meme):

https://www.instagram.com/p/BxKcNtFng3x/?igsh=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng==
 
bgrisso
Posts
3,586
Likes
8,280
P PocketOmega
That you for your comments seekingseaquest. I will take them into account on future threads.

This thread however got off track right out of the gate. I already own the watch and was merely asking the forum (I know; people) for my reference number and nothing more. But I guess the forum/people couldn't resist asking the Redial question. If it wasn't Mark I am quite sure someone else would have. The Forum Vintage Posting Guide in item 4 says to "Let us know whether this is a watch you ALREADY own or a watch you are CONSIDERING purchasing, as generally a watch someone already owns will be treated in a more gentle fashion, while a watch that is "under consideration" should be assessed with a more critical eye".

https://omegaforums.net/threads/vintage-omega-posting-guide.383/

This rule was essentially recognized by iamvr who posted earlier in this thread:

"However, the OP never asked for an opinion on the dial, only the reference number. So should we even bring this topic up and make an owner feel bad about a watch he/she previously liked? Personally, I would say, no, unless the watch is clearly intended for sale (to protect the buyer), which doesn't seem to be the case here."

So, I tried to turn the conversation away from the redial issue (which the forum/people dealt with) and make it into a learning experience but posters kept coming back to a question I never asked. And put me on the defensive.

I will use the forum in the future but I doubt I will ever post a picture of a watch that I already own again. I can more fully appreciate this meme (thanks to bgrisso for the meme):

https://www.instagram.com/p/BxKcNtFng3x/?igsh=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng==

OF is here to tell you everything there is to know about your watch, whether you want to hear it or not 👍
 
OllieOnTheRocks
Posts
1,447
Likes
3,018
P PocketOmega
I don't know. MSNWatch said that many of the dials in AJTT are redials and shouldn't be used as the gold standard. It seems like the jury is out on Mark's watch. In the other threads discussing Mark's watch, in particular watchyouwant's comments, were pretty strong; he has real concerns as to originality.
Also, assuming AJTT is original, I noticed what appears to be a significant difference in font thickness for the black numbers on the AJTT subdial (thicker) and Mark's subdial (thinner) in the picture posted by Mark in one of the 2020 threads and seen below.
left-index-jpg.1013559

I think the finer clarity of Mark's watch on the right is further evidence that would suggest it's originality.

P PocketOmega
https://www.instagram.com/p/BxKcNtFng3x/?igsh=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng==

Very humorous indeed.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

Jack Vector

Need Help Identifying Dial's Reference Number

Jack Vector Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
Jack Vector
Jack Vector
Posts
5
Views
162
Scottphoto

Help with reference number?

Scottphoto Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
Scottphoto
Scottphoto
Posts
2
Views
276
D

Serial number cross check to reference number.

Drof14 Modern Omega Watches
D
Drof14
Posts
0
Views
89
P

Omega CHRO 33.3 Redial?

PocketOmega Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
TexOmega
TexOmega
Posts
6
Views
2K
zkramez

Rolex Sea-Dweller Reference Number 16600 (Sea-Dweller 4000)

zkramez Private Watch Sales
3rdstringholder
3rdstringholder
Posts
3
Views
651
zkramez

Rolex Submariner No Date Reference Number 124060 (Heavily Worn)

zkramez Private Watch Sales
zkramez
zkramez
Posts
3
Views
727