Omega Seamaster h.e.l.p.

RubenDhae

Hey Tex

What a great challenge. Here are some of my thoughs/analyses, please don't hesitate to correct me!

- the calibre I can tell from the photo is a 552. From the photos I wasn't able to read the exact reference, which should be stamped inside the caseback. However, I searched using the "Omega Seamaster cal. 552" query.

- there is loom on the hands and also a small dot on the begining of the indices. This is good, because a dead givaway I encountered looking at vintage wathces is often that one of the two has loom, while the other is not having it. This would sceam replaced indices or hour/minute markers.

- using the query stated above, I came across a lot of different Omega cal 552 watches. None of them seem to have the style of hands. However, if the hands are too long or too short, that seems to be common as well when the hands are replaced. In this watch, the minute hand reach the beginning of the minute markers just perfectly, while the hour hand reaches the end of the minute markers perfectly as well

- the printing on the dial I'm not sure about. Some letters seem the be more bold (e.g. the O and the M in "automatic"). Could this be due to aging and fading of the other letters, or can this indicate a reprint? The O in automatic seems to be a tad bigger than the T in front of it.


I would love to compare it to other watches of the same reference. I asked the seller of a picture of the inside of the case back, so I could do that

Spruce

Well, I wallow in the lower end of the market but I wouldn’t pursue this one. Apart from anything else, the hands worry me too - they look too 50s to me.

aprax

If it is a 14700, then the alpha hands would be correct. Early 14700 and 14701 had alpha hands, later models had dauphine hands. The ref. was created in 1960.