Omega Stories: Seamaster Pro 300M Diver 2254.50 Sword Hand Family & The British Army SAS SFC LE

Posts
9,499
Likes
14,975


Much-loved and extremely popular among Omega fans, the Seamaster Pro 300M Diver 2254.50 spawned 12 regular production variants and two limited editions, including a special model for SAS SFC selectees. [..]

Visit Seamaster Pro 300M Diver 2254.50 Sword Hand Family & The British Army SAS SFC LE to read the full article.
Nice article. Note the last picture shown there doesn't show a standard 2254.50. It has had the Non-AC dial swapped in. The applied lume surrounds and AML are the give away. Or it could equally be a 2230.50 non AC with a swapped bezel.
 
Posts
29,240
Likes
35,265
Nice article. Note the last picture shown there doesn't show a standard 2254.50. It has had the Non-AC dial swapped in. The applied lume surrounds and AML are the give away. Or it could equally be a 2230.50 non AC with a swapped bezel.
Thanks mate, I’ve updated the caption
 
Posts
1,331
Likes
6,302
A wee bit late to this article. It’s a wonderful and, as always, very thorough read. Not that I need it, but this piece adds a little more pride and justification to my impulse purchasing in 2008 of a shiny new 2254.50, my first Omega. Still gets a heap of wrist time. Thanks, Ash.
 
Posts
831
Likes
3,647
Extremely helpful article, reviving this one with a related question for @dsio or anyone else that might know. Other than by an Extract or if the watch comes with papers, excluding the bracelet on the watch, are there any identifiable markings to distinguish a 2254.50 from a 2054.50?
 
Posts
9,499
Likes
14,975
Extremely helpful article, reviving this one with a related question for @dsio or anyone else that might know. Other than by an Extract or if the watch comes with papers, excluding the bracelet on the watch, are there any identifiable markings to distinguish a 2254.50 from a 2054.50?
No there are none, the head of the 2054 and 2254 are identical with the same case number, 168.1640. Without the cards, only Omega or someone with extranet access would know what bracelet a given serial number came with. This is the same situation with 2255 and 2055, it's all about the bracelet. From experience though, I would say the number of actual original 2054 and 2055s is very small. Usually these Blake/Sword Hand models are seen on the Speedy type bracelet. In some markets, such as the UK, the Bond bracelet version wasn't even offered so some you see are likely put togethers.
Edited:
 
Posts
831
Likes
3,647
Appreciate the quick reply @padders!
...with the same case number, 168.1040...
Just for my own clarity, is the case back stamp "168.1040" or "168.1640"? The reason I asked is that during my research of the 2254.50 / 2054.50 I found a number of "168.1640" stamped ones but no "168.1040" examples.
 
Posts
9,499
Likes
14,975
Appreciate the quick reply @padders!

Just for my own clarity, is the case back stamp "168.1040" or "168.1640"? The reason I asked is that during my research of the 2254.50 / 2054.50 I found a number of "168.1640" stamped ones but no "168.1040" examples.
Typo on my part. You are quite correct. 168.1640. I’ll change it so I don’t I confuse a future reader.
Edited:
 
Posts
47
Likes
29


Much-loved and extremely popular among Omega fans, the Seamaster Pro 300M Diver 2254.50 spawned 12 regular production variants and two limited editions, including a special model for SAS SFC selectees. [..]

Visit Seamaster Pro 300M Diver 2254.50 Sword Hand Family & The British Army SAS SFC LE to read the full article.
Just want to point out, there is no “Royal Army” in the UK Armed Forces as your article says in several occasions. There is the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force. The British Army is just that, the British Army, never, ever the “Royal Army”. There are Royal regiments and Royal Army service Corps like the Royal Army Medical Corps but the use of the word “Royal” in that context means the Corps was honoured by the Monarch as prior to that honour the formation would have been, and was, the Army Medical Corps. The reason is that the British Army is an amalgam of Royal regiments, Parliamentary regiments and several private regiments such as the Green Howards, named for the minor Royal who raised the regiment in the 18th century. It might be best to amend the article to remove the error. In case you were wondering I served in both the British Army and the Royal Air Force for three decades.
 
Posts
29,240
Likes
35,265
S Spqr
Just want to point out, there is no “Royal Army” in the UK Armed Forces as your article says in several occasions. There is the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force. The British Army is just that, the British Army, never, ever the “Royal Army”. There are Royal regiments and Royal Army service Corps like the Royal Army Medical Corps but the use of the word “Royal” in that context means the Corps was honoured by the Monarch as prior to that honour the formation would have been, and was, the Army Medical Corps. The reason is that the British Army is an amalgam of Royal regiments, Parliamentary regiments and several private regiments such as the Green Howards, named for the minor Royal who raised the regiment in the 18th century. It might be best to amend the article to remove the error. In case you were wondering I served in both the British Army and the Royal Air Force for three decades.
Thanks mate, updating that now, it looks like Corps of Signals is Royal but Army is British so just making those changes.