Omega Seamaster 2866: Redial or not?

E-180 · Aug 20, 2025

Hello everyone,

I'm new to vintage watches, training my eyes to see and spot details when looking at watches.

I have a doubt on this Seamaster 2866 from the 60s. What bugs me:

There is the Seamaster logo on the case back, but it's not written on the dial.
Absolutely no patina, no dots, it looks brand new...
There is something odd about the markers. They seem almost fake and when comparing with others 2866s, it was impossible to find markers similar to these.

I don't know if I'm oversuspicious or if it's an obvious redial, I have really no clue haha.

Thanks for your help

omega-seamaster-automatik-vintage-18k-ref-2866-sc-cal-501.webp

Spruce · Aug 20, 2025

I thought that the 2866 movement was from the 50s?

E-180 · Aug 20, 2025

Yes indeed, the seller said it was from the 60s, but definitely from the 50s.

2866 is not the movement tough, it's the reference. The caliber is a 501.

Spruce · Aug 20, 2025

Sorry, yes, I meant that 🫢

Passover · Aug 20, 2025

Best way to start judging vintage watches IMO is to compare a certain example with original condition ones.

It's not easy to find a 2866 in original condition as a reference, you even find 2866 case backs with and without Seamaster logo

A 16 million serial number dates the watch roughly to 1958

IMO it's pretty obvious that the dial was redone, the markers also look off but you often have different dial variations for one reference

Two things about the movement: 501 (usually this number is visiable) should have 19/20 juwels, on the rotor there is a 17

The part where the number is engraved has a very different color than the rest of the movement so maybe it was put together from different parts

Complete listing is here:
https://www.ricardo.ch/de/a/omega-seamaster-automatik-vintage-18k-ref-2866-sc-cal-501-1295470700/

Many questions here so if you are just starting with vintage watches it might be easier to look at references which are more common and better documented

ErichKeane · Aug 20, 2025

The word 'automatic' looks weird to me.

Passover
Best way to start judging vintage watches IMO is to compare a certain example with original condition ones.

It's not easy to find a 2866 in original condition as a reference, you even find 2866 case backs with and without Seamaster logo

A 16 million serial number dates the watch roughly to 1958

IMO it's pretty obvious that the dial was redone, the markers also look off but you often have different dial variations for one reference

Two things about the movement: 501 (usually this number is visiable) should have 19/20 juwels, on the rotor there is a 17

The part where the number is engraved has a very different color than the rest of the movement so maybe it was put together from different parts

Complete listing is here:
https://www.ricardo.ch/de/a/omega-seamaster-automatik-vintage-18k-ref-2866-sc-cal-501-1295470700/

Many questions here so if you are just starting with vintage watches it might be easier to look at references which are more common and better documented

The 500 is basically an identical movement, except with 17 jewels, and there is a ton of parts availability between 490, 491, and 500->505. Of those, 490 (sub-second version), 500, and 502(plus date version) are 17 jewels. SO I wouldn't be surprised at all if a watchmaker figured it didn't matter and took parts from a 490, 500, or 502.

E-180 · Aug 21, 2025

Thanks a lot for your answers.

I think I will indeed focus on more common references (Constellation for example)

Peemacgee · Aug 21, 2025

E-180
Thanks a lot for your answers.

I think I will indeed focus on more common references (Constellation for example)

Whilst there are plenty of examples to reference against - if you’re not sure what you are looking at then Constellations can also be a minefield for the uninitiated.

Omega Seamaster 2866: Redial or not?

E-180

Spruce

E-180

Spruce

Passover

ErichKeane

E-180

Peemacgee

Similar threads

1963 Constellation 167.005, 551: Redial or not?

1967 Seamaster, black dial, date - redial or not?

Pie Pan Redial? Genuine or Not?

Crappy redial or just crappy photo? (Seamaster 166.010)

1957 Connie - Redial or Not?

Omega Seamaster 145.016 Stainless Steel. Original hands or not?