Community Stories

Omega Seamaster 168.024

Hagemann70
Posts
14
Likes
6
Hi All,

I’m new to Omega Threads but I collect Seikos and Omegas mostly. I’ve been putting together a little collection of Seamasters with an SMP 2252.50 as the first one, but I love these George Genta designed ones from the 60s. Any tips / comments on this watch would be appreciated! I’ve asked the dealer to send me pics of the movement / Calibre and also case back internals - but any help on the condition of the watch / case / dial greatly appreciated cos I’m no expert! Just love the look of this!

A4B4761D-831A-44E9-8432-EF11CDB3DCCA.jpeg 866B4086-5967-40AB-A7ED-CFFBAA0F9CBE.jpeg 52DF8539-A629-4350-B0B1-FBA5BA378E97.jpeg D85517C7-3208-4983-844B-6D2F58340A58.jpeg 0E8CB12E-CD45-46C0-AD0D-9FBB87508D62.jpeg 68A7A312-326F-46A0-93AC-EF95CAA5F429.jpeg D4D2514D-1F18-4521-BEE8-CAA0BBA76AF5.jpeg
 
Spruce
Posts
8,615
Likes
71,212
The non-chronometer versions, and likely to be more available and marginally less expensive are the 166.010 with a 565 movement (and date) and the 165.010 with the 552 movement (no date). Both movements are very reliable and comparatively easy to service and source parts for.
 
Hagemann70
Posts
14
Likes
6
Spruce Spruce
The non-chronometer versions, and likely to be more available and marginally less expensive are the 166.010 with a 565 movement (and date) and the 165.010 with the 552 movement (no date). Both movements are very reliable and comparatively easy to service and source parts for.
Hey Spruce - yea there seem to be a number of variants of this model. I did notice though that the Genta designed ones have the amazing sweep of the case sides, whereas some of the earlier ones the lugs “look” applied like the 168.005 Connie’s . I prefer these!
 
Spruce
Posts
8,615
Likes
71,212
Your BoR looks like it probably is original but I’m not an expert. The way to check is to post photos of the markings on the end pieces and on the clasp.

I’m afraid I go for aftermarket bracelets and straps which are generally a fraction of the price of an original.
IMG_8038.jpeg IMG_8041.jpeg
 
Hagemann70
Posts
14
Likes
6
Spruce Spruce
Your BoR looks like it probably is original but I’m not an expert. The way to check is to post photos of the markings on the end pieces and on the clasp.

I’m afraid I go for aftermarket bracelets and straps which are generally a fraction of the price of an original.
IMG_8038.jpeg IMG_8041.jpeg
Yeah same applies to Seiko bracelets! All after market options for me. Great tip on the close ups - they do have serial numbers so will post! Yours looks great on a JUB!
 
Hagemann70
Posts
14
Likes
6
Hagemann70 Hagemann70
Yeah same applies to Seiko bracelets! All after market options for me. Great tip on the close ups - they do have serial numbers so will post! Yours looks great on a JUB!

B5323011-D2D0-4CFD-90D7-D5E7F970BE0D.jpeg 45117D2C-FD23-405B-9EC4-977991C4F471.jpeg
 
__ryan__
Posts
430
Likes
2,204
The dial, hands, and markers (with onyx inlays) are nice, but there looks to be a crack in the bezel between the 1 and 2 markers. That would be a deal breaker for me.

The crown is also incorrect, but that's less of an issue.
 
Hagemann70
Posts
14
Likes
6
__ryan__ __ryan__
The dial, hands, and markers (with onyx inlays) are nice, but there looks to be a crack in the bezel between the 1 and 2 markers. That would be a deal breaker for me.

The crown is also incorrect, but that's less of an issue.
Oh wow - yes I did see that but thought it was a scratch. Now that I look at it you could be right! I ask the dealer in that one. The dial and bezel are pretty critical to me too - have to look at that all the time! Also well spotted on the crown - it has the Omega logo on it but why is not original? I can’t tell!
 
Hagemann70
Posts
14
Likes
6
__ryan__ __ryan__
The dial, hands, and markers (with onyx inlays) are nice, but there looks to be a crack in the bezel between the 1 and 2 markers. That would be a deal breaker for me.

The crown is also incorrect, but that's less of an issue.
He has another one for sale as well - see images below. Dial and hands don’t look as nice? Is this crown original?

0398B44C-DFB3-46DE-B6C7-5D9C22A40980.png 8DC79ACC-23F1-4AF4-95CE-DFF7EBFD3F4A.png 74502E16-9C13-4120-AAB4-3E2AA9E8AFD0.png 710A637F-69BA-4ED2-A632-E4483632CA3C.png
 
Hagemann70
Posts
14
Likes
6
__ryan__ __ryan__
The dial, hands, and markers (with onyx inlays) are nice, but there looks to be a crack in the bezel between the 1 and 2 markers. That would be a deal breaker for me.

The crown is also incorrect, but that's less of an issue.
Hi Ryan - managed to find a couple of examples of the Crown. Would I be correct in assuming that the fatter looking Omega logo in the first image below is the original one for the 168? You can see the second image below has a pinched profile at the base of the logo - whereas the OG one is wider / more open looking? Fascinating research all this! Would I also be correct in assuming that if the case back doesn’t have the 168.024 and 166.010 references both printed that there’s a good chance the caseback and/or whole case isn’t original to the 168 given they shared the same design?
 
9638E905-1F75-417F-8061-E9BA1DDADC9F.png 9F66A247-E6BB-45DB-B30D-ED72D2ED1A86.png
Hagemann70
Posts
14
Likes
6
__ryan__ __ryan__
The dial, hands, and markers (with onyx inlays) are nice, but there looks to be a crack in the bezel between the 1 and 2 markers. That would be a deal breaker for me.

The crown is also incorrect, but that's less of an issue.
Hi Ryan - managed to find a couple of examples of the Crown. Would I be correct in assuming that the fatter looking Omega logo in the first image below is the original one for the 168? You can see the second image below has a pinched profile at the base of the logo - whereas the OG one is wider / more open looking? Fascinating research all this! Would I also be correct in assuming that if the case back doesn’t have the 168.024 and 166.010 references both printed that there’s a good chance the caseback and/or whole case isn’t original to the 168 given they shared the same design?

3BCCF578-7E6A-4BE6-94AC-3ED0A9808796.jpeg
 
__ryan__
Posts
430
Likes
2,204
Hagemann70 Hagemann70
Oh wow - yes I did see that but thought it was a scratch. Now that I look at it you could be right! I ask the dealer in that one. The dial and bezel are pretty critical to me too - have to look at that all the time! Also well spotted on the crown - it has the Omega logo on it but why is not original? I can’t tell!
The correct crown for the 166.010 (and also the 168.024 chronometer, I believe) is a thin scalloped crown, as shown here:
__7907_1_1000x1500.jpg __7907_5_1000x1000.jpg


This particular crown was discontinued some time ago, so it's difficult to find as a replacement part. Crowns do need to be replaced every so often, so it's common to see other crowns on these references. These aren't scarce, so you can take your time finding an example that you like.
__P1011341a.jpeg
Edited:
 
__ryan__
Posts
430
Likes
2,204
Hagemann70 Hagemann70
Dial and hands don’t look as nice? Is this crown original?
The dial on that one looks to be clean, but it's difficult to tell from those photos. There could be some blistering or lacquer damage. Some may find the darker shade attractive, others may not. I think it's kind of nice.

The crown is not correct, and I think the seconds hand may be a little short. The case back also looks odd (not original to the case?) and aggressively polished.
 
Hagemann70
Posts
14
Likes
6
__ryan__ __ryan__
The dial on that one looks to be clean, but it's difficult to tell from those photos. There could be some blistering or lacquer damage. Some may find the darker shade attractive, others may not. I think it's kind of nice.

The crown is not correct, and I think the seconds hand may be a little short. The case back also looks odd (not original to the case?) and aggressively polished.
Gee a lot to spot and pick up it would seem! Not an easy task!
 
nanjingcigaretes
Posts
1,523
Likes
1,678
__ryan__ __ryan__
The correct crown for the 166.010 (and also the 168.024 chronometer, I believe) is a thin scalloped crown, as shown here:
__7907_1_1000x1500.jpg __7907_5_1000x1000.jpg


This particular crown was discontinued some time ago, so it's difficult to find as a replacement part. Crowns do need to be replaced every so often, so it's common to see other crowns on these references. These aren't scarce, so you can take your time finding an example that you like.
__P1011341a.jpeg
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think thin scalloped would be correct for 168.024 (chronometer version). Cal. 564 was first released in mid 60s (1966ish) which will be late for thin scalloped (often correct for late 50s and early 60s models).
 
5 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

Risto

Photographing Seamaster 168.024 editorial style

Risto Watch Photography & General Photography
CalgaryJim
CalgaryJim
Posts
8
Views
272
pdxleaf

Omega Seamaster 168.023 Sparkle Dial Day-Date on Bracelet

pdxleaf Private Watch Sales
Walrus
Walrus
Posts
1
Views
300
phil.kz

Omega Seamaster 168.034 - Help Finding Crown

phil.kz Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
phil.kz
phil.kz
Posts
4
Views
511
S

Omega seamaster 168.022

Serge666 Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
S
Serge666
Posts
7
Views
2K
iosist

Potential 168.024

iosist Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
Dan S
Dan S
Posts
23
Views
1K
iosist

Opinions on this 168.024?

iosist Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
stupacone
stupacone
Posts
10
Views
958