Posts
7,949
Likes
36,045
Beautiful watch. I had it saved but didn't give it any priority due to its US location.

I think it was a steal at that price, in that condition, with all the extras.
 
Posts
9,874
Likes
55,764
Sorry I missed it. I'm in the US and I agree with cristos71 - that was a very good deal.
 
Posts
975
Likes
3,968
So this type of bracelet can indeed be original and correct for reference 14381.

Previously, I believed that only the BOR bracelet was appropriate.
 
Posts
797
Likes
9,345
I'd like to ask if the 27.9RA on the tag is the movement's diameter? In Europe, the movement's caliber has always been specified.

 
Posts
24,575
Likes
54,561
I'd like to ask if the 27.9RA on the tag is the movement's diameter? In Europe, the movement's caliber has always been specified.

Yeah, that's funny, it also says 551 or 561 (hard to read), which is probably the actual caliber.
 
Posts
6,429
Likes
9,934
what a lovely watch - someone got them selves a real keeper there.
 
Posts
6,429
Likes
9,934
So this type of bracelet can indeed be original and correct for reference 14381.

Previously, I believed that only the BOR bracelet was appropriate.
this watch is on the cusp of watches suited to the 5-row BOR and the 7-row BOR.

We would normally see the 'rounder' 5-row being paired with a lyre-lug constellation.
 
Posts
797
Likes
9,345
Yeah, that's funny, it also says 551 or 561 (hard to read), which is probably the actual caliber.

Yes, that's right, reference number 14381 should have caliber 551... and I think it does. My reference number 2943 only has 28RA. Furthermore, someone copied that from the label onto the inside of the warranty card, without specifying the caliber of the movement.

 
Posts
7,949
Likes
36,045
Yeah, that's funny, it also says 551 or 561 (hard to read), which is probably the actual caliber.
Should be 551 for a 14381
 
Posts
10,515
Likes
16,423
So this type of bracelet can indeed be original and correct for reference 14381.

Previously, I believed that only the BOR bracelet was appropriate.
That is a BOR but the 7 row kind. Edit, Philip sorry, didn't see you had posted similar.

I have a vested interest in dating a 18.2m watch accurately. Do we accept 1962 for this or is the more canonical 1961 still considered a viable manufacture date? I'd love to konw if the Oct 1962 tag seen above was from the selling jeweller or the manufacturer.
Edited:
 
Posts
6,429
Likes
9,934
I think the difficulty you have is that the dating material available varies.
It’s also thought that omega didn’t necessarily use numbers consecutively but in batches.

I’ve always used this reference which puts the lowest production date as 1961, through 1962 And 1963 - and in low production up until 1964.



Whereas Bob’s dating is more restricted to a single year.


Which all means that an 18.2 serial ‘62 watch is entirely possible.
 
Posts
10,515
Likes
16,423
Fairenoughski! and thanks. I'll explain why in a couple of days when I receive my latest acquisition back from the watchmaker. It ain't a Connie so I won't derail this threat further.
 
Posts
3,439
Likes
13,258
Thanks @Dan S

Over the last year or so I’ve heard people speak of a “soft market” often - and I agree, but only for anything below “very good”. Really spectacular pieces still fetch significant amounts, as a >3k gold-capped (!) Connie shows. Or a gold-capped 2577 Seamaster that went for significantly more a couple weeks ago. More on the latter in a few days.