So I picked up this watch today really cheap. There were no movement/case back pictures (but it was cheap enough to take the risk!). Wondering if you guys think the dial may have been restored, the style of the numbers don't seem to match with some photos online, comparison posted below from the reference pic on watchguy.co.uk. Unless number styles varied? Also non-original crown. Thanks! Comparison Dial:
Maybe you misunderstood the question. The question was whether numeral fonts could differ in much the same way as dials can differ. As the dial itself is very patinated and hands look to be original.
IMHO, the dial has been redone, the OMEGA seems to be askew and SWISS MADE poorly aligned. Of course fonts could differ.... I believe that was the hint above with the link to other examples. I could be wrong.
Ah yes, the final 'S' in Swiss Made seems to overlap the 6 marker. I cannot see that the OMEGA is askew, I may not have taken the photo dead straight on. PS. I knew what the point of the link was, but it still didn't answer the question. And clearly I knew enough about the watch to have taken the back off and looked up the reference beforehand, (which is more than can be said of some people). I just missed spotting the misaligned Swiss Made. Thanks for your help!
The answer to that question you posed, especially with Omega, is always yes, till it is no. And I could be wrong with the SWISS MADE
I would also say to others who want comment that the Swiss made is not as visible as I made it look in the photos, it is still tucked away at the bottom of the dial like on the other 14387 dials.
I am not sure the Watchguy pic is the best one to go by. That is the only example I saw when searching where OMEGA had no serifs. That being said, the 'A' in OMEGA on the watch in question looks like the legs are two different lengths, and the top of the 'A' is not flat. And the minute track is further from the dial edge then other examples I saw online.
Yes I agree with you @BlackTalon the Watchguy one is the only one without serifs. A close up of the logo: I’m not sure if the lengths on the A are different? I agree the top isn’t flat. Though if they used a different font for the numbers, could they have used a different font for the logo? This is a 14387 from OF (with wrong hands) the S on the Swiss overlaps to the same degree as the watch in question.
Thanks for your opinion! Hoping for a few others too! Only image I can find online of this dial type after searching the reference is here: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/omega-14387-manual-1958-watch-512629634 And I'm not sure if that was just pulled from someones ebay ad. Picture from link:
Okay guys, so I wanted to post a big update on this as I have been searching high and low in order to be able to shed some light on this reference. So to summarize: The Omega vintage database contains no information on this reference. When you google 14387 omega, the images that come up are mainly of 14387 -3 sc. It is very difficult to find any -1 or -2. I have managed to find a few though, I will post the pictures and the links as they may have blurred a bit when I resized them. ------------ We start with a -3 model from OF. There is no shortage of this model on google from other sources. One of the hands is wrong, but ignoring that it has the font and numerals that we might consider correct for the reference, though the dial is very clean for 60 years old: https://omegaforums.net/threads/handy-advice.73019/ -------------------- Next we have a -2 model. This again has the same font and numerals as the -3 model. This model was released in 1959 therefore 1 year later than the OP watch. http://www.littlecogs.com/watch-omega-01-rfs.html --------------- This is where it gets interesting, now an example from worthpoint, which I think just pulls data from ebay. It shows a -1 model in heavily patina-ed condition. This watch has the same font and numerals as the OP watch. https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/omega-14387-manual-1958-watch-512629634 We also have another watch that is currently on ebay, a -1 model, most likely with the wrong second hand (lollipop), but sharing the same font and numerals as the OP: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/OMEGA-520-YEAR-1958/202730189813?hash=item2f33a933f5:g:80wAAOSw3YtdJdw9Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network A watch from the website 'poshtime' states that the dial has been restored by the UK's 'leading watchmaker'. Who knows who that is in their opinion, but if the watchmaker believes themselves that good, would they not have copied the original dial when restoring it? The dial carries the same font and numerals as the OP watch. https://www.poshtime.com/495.075/Omega-14387-c.1958-.php And finally, this is where it gets really interesting. The watchguy has taken on a commission to restore a watch face. This watch is still a model -1 but as you can see from the condition in which it arrives, it is a mess, BUT with the numerals of the -2 and -3 models. And that is the spanner in the works! https://watchguy.co.uk/cgi-bin/library?action=show_photos&wat_id=1920 ------------- AND SO, good people of OF, help me make sense of that please? Can a watch with the same reference and model be in production during the same year with two different font styles? And do you now think the OP watch has an original dial or redial? Thanks! Tagging @Edward53, @BlackTalon, @TexOmega as you guys were the only ones that seemed interested to begin with!
The sub-reference should define the style of dial and hands. I don't see any problem with your watch.
Thanks Dan, what would you make of the example from watchguy (last images) where the sub-reference matches the OP watch but the font and numerals are different?
Yes, thanks for that correction. It's a production run number, and sometimes it corresponds to different styles, but not always.
@Foo2rama so do you think it is possible that the sub ref can be the same but the dial style can vary?
Most definitely. I’d not flag it as a redial. In the end it makes little difference in this case. I will note that hand length seems to be a slight mismatch... I don’t know if this is a hard and fast rule or not though. I wonder if @ConElPueblo has any comments.
So difficult to get a clear view or shot with the angle of the glass... Either the length perfectly matches the indices or is 1mm over. Anyway I would say it seems quite probable the dial is original. Now just to find an original crown and get that movement cleaned up