Forums Latest Members
  1. jljl123 Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    127
    Likes
    172
    Every time I go on this forum I learn so much so I'm back for more if you don't mind.

    I found this Omega Seamaster chronograph, ref 14364, 321 movement.

    It's from a famous dealer, I've been there before and they've always been so transparent with me regarding their Rolexes, which is why I'm surprised to see this Omega being claimed as an all original dial.

    [​IMG]

    Is it me or does the 3 o'clock subdial not look redone? Or is the crystal refracting light causing distortion? And the hands I assume are relumed since they don't match the hour markers (they don't claim otherwise regarding the hands).

    I like the crew at this shop, so please tell me I'm wrong so I won't keep getting disillusioned with the market. Thanks.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  2. Giff2577 Quick with the tools! Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    930
    Likes
    3,718
    The printing looks similar to this heavily patina'd ck2947 315.164. image.png

    Here is another one that sold on analog/shift: image.jpeg
     
  3. jljl123 Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    127
    Likes
    172
    Thanks for the photos!

    I notice that the 15 hash mark at the bottom of that same subdial is a little longer in the original photo versus the 2 examples you've shared.

    Here's another photo of the originally posted watch, the 20 in the 3 o'clock subdial also still looks bigger here, whereas the your subsequent photos, all the numbers look similarly sized in all subdials.

    [​IMG]

    I guess this is a bigger question but how much variation occurred at Omega in terms of dial painting? By this point, were these dials still being painted by hand? Could this be a factory variation? If there's already a thread on this topic I'd love to know about it, couldn't find it on a search.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  4. Nactex Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    338
    Likes
    263
    In searching the net, other than you example, which popped up first, all the dials on this reference were Tachymetre's and for less money. The one you originally posted is the only one with the 0-60 outer numbers. Really makes me wonder if the dial is original. this one is from chrono24.
    [​IMG]
     
    kingsrider likes this.
  5. jljl123 Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    127
    Likes
    172
    Interesting, ok well that seems like plenty of red flags to me


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. Nactex Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    338
    Likes
    263
    It is odd that MB would make original claims: "This is a beautiful example of a 1950s Omega Chronograph in stainless steel with an original dial.. This Omega is a reference 14364-2 and has a caliber 321, 17-jewel manual wind movement." and ask $4800. Maybe it is one of a kind?
     
  7. Vitezi Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    3,097
    Likes
    13,450
  8. Giff2577 Quick with the tools! Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    930
    Likes
    3,718
    The DEVILLE and the watch above it have differences in the font than those earlier references above. Closed vs open 6's and 9's so maybe dials of similar case references should be used for comparison.
     
  9. Nactex Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    338
    Likes
    263
    jljl123 likes this.
  10. kyle L Grasshopper Staff Member Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    4,417
    Likes
    11,222
    Looks ok
     
    Giff2577 likes this.
  11. Vitezi Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    3,097
    Likes
    13,450
    Quite right. I apologize for a poorly written post that confused instead on contributed. I should have grabbed this photo:
    [​IMG]

    (Note to self: wear reading glasses before posting)
     
    Giff2577 likes this.
  12. jljl123 Jul 26, 2016

    Posts
    127
    Likes
    172
    Thank you all for the input, as always I've learned a lot here.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk