Omega seamaster ref. 2846 1956

Posts

52

Likes

153

LRX_12

·Mar 20, 2021

Hello,

Here is my Seamaster 2846 from 1956 (according to its movement serial number). Dial is quite damaged (spots) and the case was polished at some point leading to not so sharp edges but I can live with that. It is powered by an automatic cal. 501 with 20 jewels. The signed crown should be correct. I quite like the two tone dial and the applied numbers and indices.

I have few questions for the Omega experts around:

The second had seems to be quite short. Not sure it is original or if it was maybe reduced in length. What do you guys think? Is the second hand indeed too short or is it possible it is orignal (I doubt it)?

What about the dial? "Omega" and "automatic" font looks correct to me but the print seems to be so-so (or it is my camera), see below close up. "Seamaster" print looks okay. What do you think about this?

More generally, is this piece "correct" or is there something very wrong with it?

Thanks and have a great week-end!

 

Posts

807

Likes

2,108

Observer

·Mar 20, 2021

Non-expert view here. If it’s a redial, it was clearly done a long time ago, which is better than a recent redial. See how the 10 and 11 o’clock markers aren’t exactly between the minute marks. That makes me lean toward old redial.

Good looking watch, imo. One man’s damage is another man’s patina/character.

 

Posts

807

Likes

2,108

Observer

·Mar 20, 2021

...also, are those lumed hands on a dial without lume?

 

Posts

1,854

Likes

5,412

omegastar

·Mar 20, 2021

There is lume...

 

Posts

1,534

Likes

3,234

amcclell

·Mar 20, 2021

The dial has lume in the chevron cavities of the hour markers but I think it was repainted some time ago for the reason the OP stated. The second hand is not correct but the hour and minute hands look fine. All in all for a 60+ year old watch it has nice character.

 

Posts

10,305

Likes

16,125

padders

·Mar 20, 2021·Oooo subtitles!

Looks all original to me. There is some irregularity in the top text but I think its within normal variation. The bottom text looks perfect for an earlier round S 2846. What are the first 4 serial digits? The second hand looks right but truncated.

Edited: Mar 20, 2021

 

Posts

1,172

Likes

4,959

apsm100

·Mar 20, 2021·Noob taxpayer

Looks good to me. Second hand was probably damaged, the shape looks correct.

 

Posts

13,477

Likes

31,752

X350 XJR

·Mar 20, 2021·Vintage Omega Aficionado

Looks all original to me, one of my favorite dials, Arabic numerals and daggers.

 

Posts

52

Likes

153

LRX_12

·Mar 20, 2021

Thank you all for the opinions!

@Observer yes, there is indeed lume in the indices crevices as pointed out by @amcclell and @omegastar . Regarding the 10 and 11 markers I am not sure they are not centered in reality. On the picture the perpective might make it looks like it not centered. Yet, the 8 o'clock seems to be a bit off. Is that something that points to a redial or is that possible it is part of "normal variation"?

@padders, the serial is 1511xxxx

So the hands are either wrong or truncated (my two initial hypotheses 😉 . No consensus yet!

I realized my pictures are not that sharp and there is a strong post processing applied OOB altering the black text so tried my DSLR. I do not have a macro lens unfortunately but the resolution is better. It is already dark here so no natural light, only a spotlight.

 

Posts

617

Likes

2,975

Rudi99

·Mar 20, 2021

I must say I am really curious what other OF experts have to say on the matter, but if I would have to bet, I think it might either be an early redial, since 15.1xx.xxx seems to be a tad late for this kind of S...

... or it is a very unusual case, where an old dial was laying somewhere in the production line and in around 1957 it was then used on this watch...

Whatever it is, it is not at all badly done and I think it probably looks great on the wrist.

 

Posts

52

Likes

153

LRX_12

·Mar 20, 2021

@Rudi99 interesting! What is the general consensus on the last "round S" Seamaster, serial number wise?

i found a very similar piece as mine that is currently on ebay (with a huge crown!). It has a 15.01x.xxx serial though so earlier than mine.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/C-1956-Vin...-cal-501-ref-2846-2848-in-steel-/362742753517

 

This website may earn commission from Ebay sales.

Posts

10,305

Likes

16,125

padders

·Mar 20, 2021·Oooo subtitles!

Rudi99

I must say I am really curious what other OF experts have to say on the matter, but if I would have to bet, I think it might either be an early redial, since 15.1xx.xxx seems to be a tad late for this kind of S...

.

I disagree, this is on 15.65m and I put this at 1957

This, which is likely what you are thinking of as a later example is on 16.51m and from circa 1959:

 

Posts

32

Likes

92

Blum001

·Mar 23, 2021

I think the seconds hand might have been damaged during the service at some point, and the tip was broken off. Overall still a pretty nice piece though if you ask me!

 

Posts

8,343

Likes

68,447

Spruce

·Mar 24, 2021·Sunburst dial fan

Blum001

I think the seconds hand might have been damaged during the service at some point, and the tip was broken off. Overall still a pretty nice piece though if you ask me!

This is my 1950 351 bumper in a 2577 case. My sweep 'just' touches the minute markers and, similarly, so does the minute hand.

 

Posts

32

Likes

92

Blum001

·Mar 24, 2021

Spruce

This is my 1950 351 bumper in a 2577 case. My sweep 'just' touches the minute markers and, similarly, so does the minute hand.

Exactly how it's supposed to be!

 

Posts

2,418

Likes

19,755

Dr No

·Mar 24, 2021

The tip of the sweep seconds hand was likely intentionally clipped off to accommodate a generic crystal that didn't offer enough clearance.

Art

 

Posts

52

Likes

153

LRX_12

·Mar 24, 2021

Yep, I then conclude that even though the hand is original, it was clipped at some point. And as pointed out by @Dr No , the crystal being an aftermarket one (it has no Omega logo engraved in the center), that might explain why it was shortened.

Nevertheless, I really enjoy it as the dial and markers/indices combination is very pleasant. I prefer a too short hand than a too long one as well!

 

Posts

2,418

Likes

19,755

Dr No

·Mar 25, 2021

Here's a pic of my ref 2846 . . .

. . . with an Omega replacement crystal and a seconds hand harvested from a gold 2846. My watchmaker was able to remove most of the gold plate from the hand, but traces can still be seen with the aid of a loupe.

Art