real or fake seamaster?

DHUH · Thurs. 2:01am

Hello! I'm a newbie to the world of watches, and I recently just purchased a vintage seamaster. Everything else looks and feels legit (movement, band, etc.) but the placement of the word "automatic" on the face is what worries me. I've seen it go under the omega logo above the dial on some versions of the seamaster, but all images of this particular day/date model online are showing that the word goes under the seamaster under the dial.

Please let me know your thoughts! Thank you!

Spruce · Thurs. 2:08am

If you google ‘Seamaster 166.0216’ and click on images you’ll see a variety of dials with ‘automatic’ in different positions but, reassuringly, many like yours.
Nice watch and bracelet.

DHUH · Thurs. 2:11am

Spruce
If you google ‘Seamaster 166.0216’ and click on images you’ll see a variety of dials with ‘automatic’ in different positions but, reassuringly, many like yours.
Nice watch and bracelet.

Phew what a relief. Thanks for the reassuring response!

lenndon · Thurs. 2:36am

Spruce
If you google ‘Seamaster 166.0216’ and click on images you’ll see a variety of dials with ‘automatic’ in different positions but, reassuringly, many like yours.
Nice watch and bracelet.

Eh what?
This watch is a lot.. but not nice. Sorry for OP but the dial is badly repainted if not completely fake (look at the minute markers.. you think omega would do it like that?)
The engraving inside the caseback?? horrific.
Movement is ok but very dirty.
Case and bracelet could be legit, but the pictures are not good enough to tell for sure..

JimInOz · Thurs. 2:51am

It all looks genuine to me.
The dial has very obviously been re-painted.
The case was made for Omega by Louis Lang SA, Porrentruy, Switzerland.

dsio · Thurs. 3:26am

JimInOz
It all looks genuine to me.
The dial has very obviously been re-painted.
The case was made for Omega by Louis Lang SA, Porrentruy, Switzerland.

Yep definitely real but refinished dial, Cal 1020 is a solid movement when correctly serviced too

lenndon · Thurs. 3:37am

JimInOz
It all looks genuine to me.
The case was made for Omega by Louis Lang SA, Porrentruy, Switzerland.

That made my alarm bells ring. Looks selfmade.. Can you explain how and why that is genuine Omega?

JimInOz · Thurs. 3:43am

The stylus or bearings on the pantograph engraver were obviously due for repair/replacement.
Couple that with the stylus having to engrave over a badly turned caseback finish and the result is what I'd expect to see.
1970s mass manufacturing was much the same as it had been for a hundred years and these issues you see aren't unusual.

Donn Chambers · Thurs. 5:49am

At first glance, the dial does look refinished. But looking closer, I see that particular closeup is heavily pixelated - look at the hands. I wonder if this is just a compression artifact of the image. To the OP, can you upload a better image of the dial for evaluation?

ErichKeane · Thurs. 2:43pm

Donn Chambers
At first glance, the dial does look refinished. But looking closer, I see that particular closeup is heavily pixelated - look at the hands. I wonder if this is just a compression artifact of the image. To the OP, can you upload a better image of the dial for evaluation?

I agree with Don, that dial photo has so much compression artifacts, I'm not sure it is even a watch 😁

First thing I notice though is that the date isn't centered in the window, likely means it is in need of a service pretty desperately (along with the filth that is in the movement).

I'll disagree with Jim on the case back... THAT looks like there was something wrong inside the case back, so they put it on a lathe and turned a little off, then re-traced the 'faint' imprint that they left off. There is more to that than worn out pantograph failure.

Biggest tell to me is the transition between the flat and the sides, but I'd also expect a much large nose radius on the lathe tool than that, so it should result in 'smaller' ridges.

padders · Thurs. 3:55pm

The quick and dirty answer is that Omega made junk between around 1972 and 1982. Things like the dodgy inner caseback logo and crappy movement finishing are to be expected. I suspect the artefacts on the picture are making the dial look worse but IF it is just artefacts, that could well be all original. Seriously, these were the dark days, the company barely survived.

Post a better higher res pic of the dial and I suspect one or two here might be eating their redial words...

lenndon · Thurs. 5:14pm

padders
...I suspect the artefacts on the picture are making the dial look worse but IF it is just artefacts, that could well be all original. Seriously, these were the dark days, the company barely survived.

Post a better higher res pic of the dial and I suspect one or two here might be eating their redial words...

Atrifacts ok, but how are there sometimes spaces in between the minute markers and the inner circle and sometimes not? Or even sometimes reaching over. That is clearly not the compression. And I just do not want to believe that that is Omegas work. I have seen a lot of dials of the 70s and nothing factory of that sort.

DHUH · Thurs. 8:32pm

Donn Chambers
At first glance, the dial does look refinished. But looking closer, I see that particular closeup is heavily pixelated - look at the hands. I wonder if this is just a compression artifact of the image. To the OP, can you upload a better image of the dial for evaluation?

Yessir. Here you go!

Dan S · Thurs. 8:35pm

OK, officially a redial.

padders
The quick and dirty answer is that Omega made junk between around 1972 and 1982.

Tell us how you really feel, Dave. 😂

DHUH · Thurs. 8:44pm

Dang. I just looked up what redials are. Looks like this devalues it pretty heavily 🙁 Thanks so much everyone! I learned so many new words today hahaa

ErichKeane · Thurs. 8:45pm

I think @lenndon was right, that outer ring is very inconsistent. I was hopeful it was explainable by jpeg artifacts, but this one very much has been redialed for the minute markers.

Interestingly, the center dial looks good to me.

lenndon · 2026-03-13T04:12:07-0500

ErichKeane
Interestingly, the center dial looks good to me.

The Automatic writing does not qualify 😁

JimInOz · 2026-03-13T04:37:03-0500

lenndon
The Automatic writing does not qualify 😁

What?

Isn't the square blocky text a well known Omega font?

😉

Davidt · 2026-03-13T04:44:35-0500

The seam

lenndon
The Automatic writing does not qualify 😁

i was just about to say the same.

ErichKeane · 2026-03-13T08:03:46-0500

padders
The quick and dirty answer is that Omega made junk between around 1972 and 1982. Things like the dodgy inner caseback logo and crappy movement finishing are to be expected. I suspect the artefacts on the picture are making the dial look worse but IF it is just artefacts, that could well be all original. Seriously, these were the dark days, the company barely survived.

Post a better higher res pic of the dial and I suspect one or two here might be eating their redial words...

"Junk" is relative TBH. The 1020/etc series movements are definitely made down to a budget/have reduced finishing/etc, but are still nicer than most movements by other manufacturers. ASchild movements went from lovely to a step above pin-pallet,

JimInOz
What?

Isn't the square blocky text a well known Omega font?

😉

Eh? I could swear I've seen that font on good ones before....

real or fake seamaster?

DHUH

Spruce

DHUH

lenndon

JimInOz

dsio

lenndon

JimInOz

Donn Chambers

ErichKeane

padders

lenndon

DHUH

Dan S

DHUH

ErichKeane

lenndon

JimInOz

Davidt

ErichKeane

Similar threads

Is this an Original or Fake Seamaster Quartz?

Real or fake Seamaster 1430 196.0279 Please help

Real or fake Seamaster

Real or fake Seamaster 2541.80 GoldenEye

Real or Fake Seamaster 2541.80 GoldenEye Help

Fake Seamaster 300