this was one of my early eBay purchases. Was thinking about selling it as it hasn't been serviced in years. I'm considering keeping it if it's an original dial.

 

Very likely refinished dial. Hands don't look correct either.

 

Dial is 100% redone...Hands are wrong for sure,second hand is way too short..

 

Original, hands correct for a no lume dial.

 

So apologize for my wrong statement...X350 do you have an other example to share and compare...?Would be great..

 

I don't know whether that dial is original or refinished as there are some very convincing black redials, but it's not a recent redial as the age signs are there - flaking around the Omega symbol and name, spotting around the second quarter edge. I don't see any uneven spacing of the minute markers, the lines are in the right place, the script looks good and the hands look ok to me apart from the second which as mentioned is too short so presumably a replacement. So no definite evidence that I can see of a redial.

 

https://omegaforums.net/threads/rea...eamaster-deville-black-with-crosshairs.48274/

 

Check the 'S' in Seamaster. Redone? I'd say Y-E-S.

 

This is my other watch I'm fairly confident this is all original. The S is very similar and from the same era.

 

Check the 'S' from 'Seamaster' on this one (random pick from Google images). Both could be right, but this looks better:

Almost all models I've seen have the wide smooth 'S'... Also no difference in line thickness (read 'hand painted') in the word 'Seamaster'.

 

Different venders different S?

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/wh...al-fonts-626758.html#/topics/626758?_k=y87jpn

 

Yup, but overall not sloppy

 

The "coathanger" S is typical of earlier dials and came in a number of variants. See the post by JimInOz on this thread: https://omegaforums.net/threads/please-help-id-this-vintage-seamaster.48223/

I hate to bring bad news but that is a definite redial. Expand the picture and the quality of the script is very poor, the worst offender being the "G" in "OMEGA". The minute markers are also clumsily done and inconsistent in size and spacing.

 

Definitely a redial. The font is pretty poor, but just look at the alignment of the applied markers and the hash marks. Some of them are no where near each other.

 

Yes, correct, but this looks like a combination between the coathanger and the wide smooth 'S'

 

There is no doubt there have been different legit shapes for the S in Seamaster, including this one for old SM.

Concerning the OP' s watch, I feel hard to tell if it is a redial. The scripts look a bit heavy. The "m" with 3 nnn rather than 2 nn is pretty rare. But these scripts could be legit (I remember a few exemples with Seamaster with such a 3 nnn m - I hope what I am saying is clear!).

But the sec hand is very likely not original.

 

Thank you everyone for looking and commenting. I know it must get old seeing the dreaded redial questions all the time. It sounds like it can be pretty subjective. Now I'm unsure if the other watch I posted in this thread is a redial! I had always thought it was original. (Maybe it was an early redial?)

 

Perfectly clear. Here's a 1955 Seamaster 354 chronometer with the same shape "m". This dial is original and untouched.

If I were OP I would keep that first watch until I'm certain one way or another. Personally I think the dial is ok. The only way to be sure is either to look through a glass or take a high-definition close-up photo and expand it, which should show whether the lettering is printed or painted. (I assume black redials for early SMs are all painted not printed, but someone may know better.)