Forums Latest Members
  1. ChrisN Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    2,218
    Likes
    4,756
    Hi Guys

    Another request for an opinion by the experts here. Thanks for any help and passing on of your knowledge.This is my third request and many thanks for the help on the previous two.

    I am looking for two 1950s or 1960s watches: an 18k Seamaster or Constellation for very occasional use and a stainless one for more regular use so, my requests vary. Anyway, this one is an 18k Seamaster at a big price but, reading "Condition , condition, condition...." at the top of the forum perhaps this is not a bad idea if the watch is correct.

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/121137289634Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

    So, to see if I am learning, to me this looks correct and has sharp edges without real polishing. If the dial has been refinished then it seems to have been done very well and for me is as I would expect it to look with the knowledge I have. I wait and would welcome any corrections to my inexperienced eye!

    There is another completely different model that I have asked for better pictures of so, will let you know if I get any.

    Thanks in advance,

    Chris
     
  2. John R Smith Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    1,320
    Likes
    726
    Chris

    I do like your avatar! Others with more knowledge than mine will be along shortly, but the watch looks good to me. However, my feeling is that his price is a little too high for a mid 1960s SM even in 18k gold. I have seen a 9k gold version going for £850 with the same cal 552 and in nice condition - not mint, but nice. By the by, the 552 is a brilliant movement, I have one myself.

    John
     
  3. ChrisN Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    2,218
    Likes
    4,756
    Thanks John. I think this is expensive but, it seems mint.
    Sounds like I need a 552 regardless!
     
  4. ChrisN Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    2,218
    Likes
    4,756
    Sorry, pressed the wrong button before finishing. It's an XK120 in my avatar and is a point that relates to this. I bought it more than ten years ago and had the option of two. Well, this one was about 30% more than the other and I ummed and ahhed about the extra cost but, it has been totally reliable and is worth a lot more now such that I couldn't afford it. In the end, I forgot the premium and have been lucky enough to drive it for that time. As I haven't sold it, I have not won anything but, it set me thinking about paying a premium (if required!).

    Chris
     
  5. John R Smith Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    1,320
    Likes
    726
    Ah, it's a 120, I wasn't sure - the purist version! I suppose I should have known from the sidelight nacelles. I love the painted wires, but would hate to have to clean them . . . your point is taken, but to me at least a 1965 Seamaster is a lot less desirable than an XK120. Now if it were a 1955 in 18k gold, perhaps ;)

    (in a previous life I owned, drove and re-built a Mk VIII)
     
  6. seamonster Respectable Member Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    1,426
    Likes
    191
    Respectable Member ChrisN

    The XK120 is gem and a classic that will never age. Barring a fire-sale, this priceless vintage masterpiece from Jaguar will remain in the family, for generations to come.

    It purrs like a pussy-cat yet built as solid as a Mr Universe. Surely it is a darling in the family. Love your baby.

    As for the watch you intend buying, I am not qualified to make much comment. Though beautiful, I think the asking price is on the high-side, at least for today.

    Thank-you.
     
  7. MSNWatch Vintage Omega Aficionado Staff Member Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    6,528
    Likes
    10,780
    I'm all for getting a vintage omega in top notch condition but this one is not a sought after vintage omega and even correcting for the condition it is worth less than 50% of the asking price.
     
  8. John R Smith Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    1,320
    Likes
    726
    Mike speaks words of wisdom, as I thought. Should we say £1,200 to £1,500, absolute tops?
     
  9. ChrisN Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    2,218
    Likes
    4,756
    Thanks Guys. With a 100% premium, I shall forget it. Am having a lot of trouble getting the hierarchy of values at the moment. Anyway, as I have your attention, what about this one (I have asked for more detailed pictures)?

    http://www.ebay.es/itm/360693858461Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

    I could talk all day about cars and agree about not selling the 120, Seamonster. Cleaning that car is a joy, John ;) but the wires are a pain! Love the Mk VII and VIII but am trying to resist buying more cars. I just don't have the space, unfortunately.

    Cheers,

    Chris
     
  10. MSNWatch Vintage Omega Aficionado Staff Member Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    6,528
    Likes
    10,780
    That watch already posted and discussed some in the recommended ebay watches thread. Nice example but for the case which has been polished some - not totally unacceptable but enough to reduced its attractiveness to the experienced vintage watch collector. It is a very uncommon and desirable model to be sure and if the price were say 10-20% lower it would be a clear buy.
     
  11. John R Smith Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    1,320
    Likes
    726
    As Mike says. These "hooded lug" Seamasters are a little more common in gold cap versions, but this is really rather special in solid 18k gold. It has the 354 'bumper' movement and the serial number dates it to 1952, as far as I can tell, not 1960. The two-tone guilloche dial is really nice. It looks to be in stunning condition to my untutored eye. The screw-in back is nice (the others I have seen had snap-on backs). You probably won't see another one any time soon. Having said all that, it does rather depend on whether you really like it, of course. It's altogether a bit too "dressy" for my taste . . . all right with a dinner jacket and bow tie, but not so good with a sports jacket and a pint of ale ;)

    John
     
  12. ChrisN Jul 20, 2013

    Posts
    2,218
    Likes
    4,756
    Thanks for the inputs. I have now found the previous discussions (have looked at so many watches over the last month or two that I may have picked up on that, or not, am not sure). I have to admit that when I saw it, I thought it was stunning. Agreed, John, the movement seems to be from 1952 (I am learning, slowly). A pity as 1960 was perfect. However, I have requested better photos and am very taken with it. Will see if they come up with anything.

    John, I think I could cope with wearing this and a pint.:) It would be hard but someone has to do it!

    Thanks MSN, all the help I have received here has been much appreciated.

    Chris.
     
  13. ChrisN Aug 1, 2013

    Posts
    2,218
    Likes
    4,756
    Hi Guys

    I see from the previous discussion that the low res pics seemed to leave some room for doubt. The seller has now sent me some at higher res and I would be interested to know if this changes your opinion at all. The notches in the back look sharp and I feel that the lugs and bezel are not too polished. The dial seems very clean. Any thoughts are much appreciated as 2500 euros is a significant amount.

    Thanks, Chris.
     
    P7295003_edit0.JPG
  14. ChrisN Aug 1, 2013

    Posts
    2,218
    Likes
    4,756
    Some more pictures.
     
    P7295001_edit0.JPG P7295005_edit0.JPG P7295012_edit0.JPG P7295015_edit0.JPG AP7295000_edit0.JPG
  15. John R Smith Aug 1, 2013

    Posts
    1,320
    Likes
    726
    Much better pictures, Chris.

    It just seems odd, that if it's 1952 or '53 ish - that it has got that style of coathanger 'S' in Seamaster. My '53 has the guilloche dial but the broad, softer loop in the 'S' and the 'r' has the dangly loop at the end.

    But I am no expert - a real one will be along in a moment.

    John
     
  16. ChrisN Aug 1, 2013

    Posts
    2,218
    Likes
    4,756
  17. John R Smith Aug 1, 2013

    Posts
    1,320
    Likes
    726
    Yes, well that one's like my SM - open 'S' and droopy 'r'. Not like your target. Your 'S' has a flat top . . .

    John
     
  18. ChrisN Aug 1, 2013

    Posts
    2,218
    Likes
    4,756
    I see what you mean, thanks John.
     
  19. ulackfocus Aug 1, 2013

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    These SM chronometers had slightly different fonts than everyone is used to seeing. Wait for Mike, Steve, Evan, or Kyle to verify but I think that dial is fine. The north - south crosshair runs just inside the spine of the E in OMEGA and the S in Seamaster looks good to me. The only thing I'm not sure of is the caliber. That swan's neck is for a 354, but the serial number is from 1952 which I thought was when Omega still used the snail regulator 352.
     
  20. Hijak Aug 1, 2013

    Posts
    7,225
    Likes
    24,337

    Love your avatar as well! The British sure knew how to design a sexy sports car back then, didn't they...