Railmaster 2914-5

Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
Great! Thank you! I love it here 馃榿

If hands have been relumed than it was nicely done. Geiger shows - according to seller - also the right signs.
Geiger always shows...its a Railmaster. it will be off the chart even with relumed hands.
 
Posts
9,596
Likes
27,705
Its a beauty...the dial condition is very typical as the lume crumbles and sits on the dial burning the finish.

Dial condition like this is, IMO, only really typical on antimagnetic watches with iron dials, which makes me believe it has to do with the easily corroding dial material reacting to moisture. My own Certina DS amagnetic suffers the same patination and there isn't any lume loss.
 
Posts
340
Likes
1,260
Wow...

Very nice, I adore these 2914 Railmasters 馃榾

My younger cousin says hello 馃榾

 
Posts
5,598
Likes
9,424
and another one on the original band......
in the OP watch the Amag inner movement holder ring and the Amag. inner cover are re-manufactured. no longer Amagnetic now. many have rusted away and with his dial it shows, this Railmaster had seen some moisture in the past........ kind regards. achim
 
Posts
321
Likes
699
and another one on the original band......
in the OP watch the Amag inner movement holder ring and the Amag. inner cover are re-manufactured. no longer Amagnetic now. many have rusted away and with his dial it shows, this Railmaster had seen some moisture in the past........ kind regards. achim
Thanks for the Insight: why is it Not anti-magnetic anymore? Wrong material used?
 
Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
Dial condition like this is, IMO, only really typical on antimagnetic watches with iron dials, which makes me believe it has to do with the easily corroding dial material reacting to moisture. My own Certina DS amagnetic suffers the same patination and there isn't any lume loss.

no doubt that is a major factor in both, the hands look relumed to me as well....which is far more common on these early Railmasters. But of course we are looking at low res photos, impossible to tell for sure unless its in your hands. But based on the overall condition I would say the odds are very high...especially considering how perfect they look...but of course thats just my .02. Overall its a beautiful watch and worth the effort to spend a few years searching for the original parts. Patience is key.
 
Posts
5,861
Likes
16,791
Nothing better than a 2914 Railmaster thread however.....
I think the Cailber 284 movement is too early for the OP 2914-6 and would be more correct in a 2914-1 thru 4.
2914-5 (PAF Seamaster) and 2914-6 are generally seeen with a Caliber 285.
Railmaster 135.004-63 use Caliber 286.

Just sayin.....
 
Posts
321
Likes
699
Nothing better than a 2914 Railmaster thread however.....
I think the Cailber 284 movement is too early for the OP 2914-6 and would be more correct in a 2914-1 thru 4.
2914-5 (PAF Seamaster) and 2914-6 are generally seeen with a Caliber 285.
Railmaster 135.004-63 use Caliber 286.

Just sayin.....

My research dates the movement (169xxx) to 1958 http://www.elitetimepieces.com/omegaref.html which would be according to https://thespringbar.com/blogs/guides/omega-railmaster-a-collector-s-guide/ fine as it dates cal 284 to 1957-58.
 
Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
Nothing better than a 2914 Railmaster thread however.....
I think the Cailber 284 movement is too early for the OP 2914-6 and would be more correct in a 2914-1 thru 4.
2914-5 (PAF Seamaster) and 2914-6 are generally seeen with a Caliber 285.
Railmaster 135.004-63 use Caliber 286.

Just sayin.....

didn't notice this...but you are correct. 1958 is too early for a -6
sn.
Edited:
 
Posts
321
Likes
699
didn't notice this...but you are correct. 1958 is too early for a -6
It's 169xxx which is really close to 17xxx (1959) which would be 285 - I think it could well be that this is okay.

But i am getting into an experts discussion here and been reduced to the OP 馃檮
 
Posts
2,680
Likes
9,844
It's 169xxx which is really close to 17xxx (1959) which would be 285 - I think it could well be that this is okay.

But i am getting into an experts discussion here and been reduced to the OP 馃檮

no that is not accurate. I can tell you that your movement number predates 2914-4 numbers.
 
Posts
464
Likes
460
I can tell you that your movement number predates 2914-4 numbers

+1 to this. 16.9xx.xxx serial is more into 1959 production than 1958 IMHO hence rather Cal 285. The OP might want to get a confirmed Extract. Most 2914 archives are available.
 
Posts
321
Likes
699
+1 to this. 16.9xx.xxx serial is more into 1959 production than 1958 IMHO hence rather Cal 285. The OP might want to get a confirmed Extract. Most 2914 archives are available.
This is the Plan, service, as many original parts as possible to Change (ie. Crystal) and extract.

Hope to get this done as I was really happy with my purchase.
 
Posts
9,596
Likes
27,705
no doubt that is a major factor in both, the hands look relumed to me as well....which is far more common on these early Railmasters. But of course we are looking at low res photos, impossible to tell for sure unless its in your hands. But based on the overall condition I would say the odds are very high...especially considering how perfect they look...but of course thats just my .02. Overall its a beautiful watch and worth the effort to spend a few years searching for the original parts. Patience is key.

...Were you meaning to quote me? Your reply seems to be about relumed hands?
 
Posts
8,488
Likes
60,624
Its a beauty...the dial condition is very typical as the lume crumbles and sits on the dial burning the finish. I would assume the hands were relumed...but those hands are quite uncommon, ive only seen two others with the larger lume hour hand. Here are mine, 2914-2 and 2914-4

With a special order Factory Lume addition in this era, one received the larger lumed triangle hour hand.
Example for the Constellation:

 
Posts
321
Likes
699
Congrats on this, how long did you hunt this baby down? So cool!
Thank you! Railmaster was pretty long on the wishlist - but to be honest: always too expensive 馃槖 but when I saw this one I could not resist 馃榾