Omega Geneve 131.019 SP

Hello everyone!


This is the first time I’m starting a discussion onany forum, so I would like to apologize in advance for any mistakes in the formor etiquette in this post.

I’m one of the silent users of the forum—though I’venever posted, I’ve been here reading, learning, and deepening my passion forquite some time now. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity toexpress my gratitude and admiration for those who make this forum possible andso rich in content!

I practice watchmaking as a hobby on "lower-valuewatches", and for a few years now I’ve been collecting some Omega watchesfrom the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s (pieces I rarely work on myself since I’m not aprofessional by any means). I’ve often wanted to share here some of my findsand purchases, and I hope there’ll be a chance to do so in the future.

Anyway, I was asked today for my opinion on the Omega Geneve 131.019 SP that is the subject of this thread. I’ve never owned aGeneve, but I was able to compare certain aspects with some Seamaster De Ville and Cosmic (or similar) models I own.

Right away, I labeled this watch as a fake, thoughcertain elements still catched my curiosity. Here are my initial impressions and assessments:

First, the watch feels very much cheaply made compared to the other Omega I own. The shape of the case looks quite odd, especially regarding the ring where the plexiglass (which isn’t signed) fits in. The case has also has obviously been mistreated and poorly polished, removing quite few material here and there, and from the lugs especially. (The crown is not signed either).

The dial also appears to be a reproduction/reprint, as it’s much too clean possibly considering the condition of the case and caseback. The “Omega” text looks a bit too thick and a crispy, and the indices—where on other watches I’ve seen onyx inserts—are simply drawn or printed on and poorly centered. (They do, however, match the style of the hands and the absence of the “T” marking on the dial).

Moving on to the Caliber 601: at first glance, in terms of its shape and plating, it seems correct. However, the quality of the engravings and the surface finish is way lower than other 601 calibers I own. Especially the text "adjusted two (2) position" and "seventy 17 jewels" is almost unreadable even using a loupe (pictures make it look better than in reality), whereas I can easily read it on other calibers without any effort.


So, should I call it an interesting replica created with a fair amount of effort or not?

According to the original owner, this watch belongedto his now-deceased father for many years. If it is indeed a fake (and I’d likeyour confirmation, along with any additional observations you might have), I’msurprised by how much work went into recreating the movement that’s extremelyclose to the original—especially if it truly dates back to that era. However, Iwonder if it might be a even a more recent replica that just was passed off asa family heirloom.

Thank you in advance for any opinions or usefulfeedback! In the meantime, I wish you all a great weekend!

I apologize for the repeated spacing errors in the post. Since I wasn’t sure how the post creation process worked, I first wrote the text separately and then copied and pasted it, which apparently caused the formatting to be altered. Not the best for my first post😬.

Thank you both for your reply. The hands don’t have lume but just black lines, consistent with the markers. I’m sorry for the close-up photos, I tried to take them using a loupe to provide more detail🙄.

Thank you very much, here it is possibly a better picture for the hands

Thanks for the note and the great explanation about the engraving. I’ve just removed the plexi, and indeed the dial appears quite clearly to be reprinted.

thanks for the reply! Even if the character in OMEGA text are a bit uneven?