Omega Seamaster De Ville - original or Franken ?

[Carthus]

Hello to all of you Omega enthusiasts,

I am a new member from France, interested in vintage watches of all sorts, mainly Omega, Enicar among others.

I would love to have your opinion about an Omega Seamsater de Ville which I just acquired. From the serial number on the watch caliber (cal. 562), it seems to have been manufactured in 1965. The crystal is not an original one, and it partially hides the "Swiss Made T" marking at six o'clock.



After doing some more research, like I should have before the purchase, certain details seem to be a little off. I bought the watch in a hurry since the market is relatively quiet here, and the seller had organized a limited time discount offer.

Here are the details which appear strange to me, pictures following. I know I should have done my homework before buying, but the excitement got the best of me...

The watch has a screw-in back and not a monobloc / unishell case like all Seamaster de Villes I have seen online. Is it just unusual for a Seamaster de Ville, or completely impossible ? The back has the 166.002 reference code, and not 166.020 which is usually associated with the model.





Then, the crown doesn't look like any other I have seen on a seamaster de Ville picture. It appears to be a genuine Omega part, but it seems too big for the ridge and the watch is hard to wind manually, even when it stopped.



Finally, the hands and dial go well together in aesthetic terms, but I'm not sure these gold hands are usually seen with this gold and onyx index markers...



Thaks in advance for any advice, remarks or insight. I am new to this hobby and will certainly appear ignorant to you. I'm just hoping to get more knowledgeable in the future.

Oh, and if anyone can be kind enough to shw me how to make the pictures less gigantic, that would be helpful too. I'm not much of a tech person, and can use any help !

Have a nice day all of you !

Carthus

Edited: Mar 31, 2024

 

[bubba48]

Original...or franken...? That is the question
Whether 'tis nobler to post some pictures of the watch
Or to use a crystal ball to make the choice

 

[Carthus]

Hi, how stupid of me ! I seem to have posted my draft unintentionally.
I still have to figure out how to post pictures directly, since my smartphone won't allow direct sharing of pictures for obscure safety reasons (Yes, I am quite hopeless with tech...)

 

[Dan S]

You can still edit the original post to add description and upload photos.

 

[Carthus]

Hi Bubba48,
After some effort i have managed to edit my first post and pictures are noww inserted. So now we can put away the crystal ball and the community can work their magic ! (I'm not a native English Speaker, hope my reply makes sense)

 

[Carthus]

Thank you Dan S. Followed your advice ad It's all better now ! Not usd to posting on forums, hopefully that will change.

 

[Davidt]

It’s a Seamaster DeVille movement and dial transplanted into a 166.002 case.

 

[Carthus]

Thanks for the quick answer Davidt ! That's what I suspected but the seller denied it vigorously...

So the movement, dial and hands may be original, but the case isn't ? Could it be just the back, or is it the whole case ? Are the hands original or salvaged from another watch.

Sorry for the numerous questions !

 

[Davidt]

The case back and mid/main case are correct for a 166.002.
Hands look like they are original to the dial.
It’s impossible to know whether the movement is original to the dial or case as the 562 came in both the 166.020 and the 166.002. An extract from Omega could confirm but a) they’re not currently available and b) it’s costs £100 and it wouldn’t be worthwhile spending that on this watch.

I’d return it if you can unless it was say £150.

 

[Carthus]

Ok Davidt, at least I finally figures there was something wrong...
Sadly I won't be able to return it since I paid directly via bank transfer, and not through a website.
What about the crown ? Does it look original to you ?

Could I maybe get a New 166.020 case on the cheap ? Or maybe a replacement seamaster dial ?
Being stuck with the watch (wich runs rather accurately at -8s/day, IS there anything I can do to minimize the loss ?

Thanks for the insight !

 

[Davidt]

Crown isn’t correct for either ref. It’s likely service replacement.

How much did you pay? Personally I wouldn’t throw good money after bad. I’d use this as a daily beater and put additional money towards finding a better example

 

[X350 XJR]

Only us watch fanatics will know just wear and enjoy.

 

[Carthus]

I goy it for a little less than 700 euros... Steep now that I know it's not all original.
Few vintage seamasters to be had here in France, what convinced me was the accuracy.
Both of you seems to agree about using it as a daily wear and not worrying about the non original case (which is in good shape by the way).
I think this is the way to go : it's accurate, and looks good. As X350 points out, only my friend's dad who's a passionate amateur watchmaker will notice when I bring it in for service. Theonly gripe is the resale value, which won't matter as long as I keep wearing it.
All's well that ends well, thanks to you gentlemen

 

[Dan S]

Given the condition of the dial, I would not invest any more time and energy into restoring this watch.