Hey all, Stumbled across this 2914-3Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network on eBay while scanning through the latest Omega listings. I saw it when it had two bids and was at like $10.50, now it's near $3k. What do you think? I am not well-versed in the world of vintage Omega, but if this is the real deal and is original, then it's an exciting opportunity for the community. The seller looks promising IMO. Really poor quality pics for this though, unfortunately. Edit: I should add, I tried to compare these photos to other 2914-3s from old listings and from what I can tell, it looks legitimate. I'm certainly no expert, so I could be wrong. I'm excited to see what you guys think.
Looks nice but I think that second hand may be a replacement, I think they were correct for the 135.004 second generation but not for early 2914s.
I was thinking the same thing. The hand at least looks like it was an old 60s Speedy/SM300 hand. Takes away from the originality but it looks nice. To my untrained eye, that dial looks to be impeccable
Agree.. plus the minute hand is also wrong. Look at the shape of the lume area. My 2914-3 below. Would be interesting to see a clear movement shot/get the serial.
@kox Really good catch, and beautiful watch. Do you think there were different minute hands that Omega used during assembly? I found some examples online with minute hands that look identical to the eBay example. Check it out: Also, @davten I couldn't agree more. It looks flawless.
The RM used 3 different handsets. The BA set on the early 2914's. The dauphine set, as above, on the late 2914's (typically -5 and -6's) and early 135.004's. And then stick/baton hands on later 135.004's. But the hour/minute hands were never mixed.
My 135.004 has a similar minute hand which I believe is correct? And the lume on the ebay minute hand matches the other lume perfectly. I think it is original to the watch.
Not sure from the photo if the mag cover in the OP RM is original. Could be the underside is shown. Should be shaped like this: 2777-1 1955 version has a fourth handset of RAF type Broad Arrow Hands btw! Left to Right, reference and hand type 2777-1 Broad Arrow RAF type,, 2914-1, 2914-4 Broad Arrow RM type Hands, 2914-6 Dauphine, 135.004-63 Baton
I think the OP photo is just a bad angle on the dust cover - the inside looks like it's the correct domed shape -
Railmaster on eBay looks good to me, hands issue is not that big a deal. Main is the dial and case corrosion, both seems to be in good shape
If i am understanding @kox correctly it is not that the minute hand itself is incorrect, it is that it is from a different set as it does not match the hour hand. In other words either the Hour hand or the minute hand are replacements as the watch itself never came on that particular configuration.
Seller is rather evasive regarding my request for the movement number "Only the winning bidder will get this information." Nice!
the seller should shout you a few beers for posting it here. gets up quickly now...... kind regards. achim
That's not a good sign... maybe he's under the impression that the serial number is somehow confidential to the watch? I dunno. That's weird. Not what you want to hear as a response to that question to say the least. [emoji19]
Looks like a nice watch to me.... what i like the aged look of the hands match... but not getting serial numbers is really silly if he wants to get max price..... If you want I would tell the seller to check this thread out.... Good Hunting Bill Sohne
maybe he knows, that the excerpt from the archives might not match the serial number to a Railmaster? that caliber was in 1000`s of other models as well..... kind regards. achim
Mr Seller thinks other Achim. Messaged me: "And i think this movement is unique to the Railmaster model."