research question on an Omega cal 354 dial

GregH · Mar 31, 2016

I've been trying to learn by reading as much as I can in the forms and by looking at dials on ebay, etc.
I was looking around at various cal 351 & 354 Seamasters and came upon this cal 354 dial on ebay:

I've been trying to practice researching the details, so here is the process I have so far.
This dial is in a Ref 2635-7SC case and in the 13 million serial number, dating to 1952 on Chronomaddox.
I haven't seen too many dials in this pattern and most of them seem to be pretty obvious redials.
(I actually posted a black one on the obvious redials thread, that looked like it was painted with a hi-lighter).
This one looks like it could be original, but I still feel like I'm training my eye and .

I searched the Omega vintage site and Naligazone, and all the pieces seem to belong together correctly.
I've attached the reference at the end, with an image of a correct dial, but the statement "different types available".
I've also attached some variants I could find on the Omega vintage site, but not for this reference.
I've looked at AJTT as well and don't see this particular dial configuration. Google image search was not too helpful.

My main question is where would I go next to research the "different types available" when I see a dial like this?
Is there a "name" for this dial type? Are there other references I should be looking at for Seamasters?

I'm also curious to hear from the experts whether this dial is original.
I'll go out on a limb to say that I think it is based on patina and the lettering (be gentle, I'm new!).

Thanks for any thoughts!

1949 - 1954

SEAMASTER

CK 2635

FEATURES
INTERNATIONAL COLLECTION

1949 - 1954

DIMENSIONS

Ø32,5 mm

CASE

Stainless steel

CASE BACK TYPE

Screw-in

DIAL

Different types available

CRYSTAL

Armoured hesalite

BRACELET

Leather

FUNCTION

MOVEMENTS
TYPE

Automatic chronometer certified

CALIBER NUMBER

351 / 354

OTHER

Cal. 351
Created in 1949, 17 jewels, sometimes COSC
Cal. 354
Created in 1952, 17 jewels, COSC
Both with central sweep-second hand

TECHNICAL DATA
WATER RESISTANCE

30 meters

MSNWatch · Mar 31, 2016

Original dial. To learn you have to look and look and look. There are literally over a hundred cal. 351/354 dial variations. To be an expert you probably have to have seen many thousands. It takes time usually years and a few mentors.

GregH · Mar 31, 2016

MSNWatch
Original dial. To learn you have to look and look and look. There are literally over a hundred cal. 351/354 dial variations. To be an expert you probably have to have seen many thousands. It takes time usually years and a few mentors.

Thanks, @MSNWatch It's helpful to know that I just need to keep looking and absorbing and learning. I'm grateful for all the collected experience here.

Canuck · Mar 31, 2016

Here's a couple to add to your research, just in case the images may be meaningful. The dial on the left with the rose gold indexes is from a caliber 28.10 which is earlier than your 344. The other dial I believe is from a caliber 344.

GregH · Mar 31, 2016

Canuck
Here's a couple to add to your research, just in case the images may be meaningful. The dial on the left with the rose gold indexes is from a caliber 28.10 which is earlier than your 344. The other dial I believe is from a caliber 344.

Those are both beautiful dials! Thanks for posting. I appreciate all the information I can get. This post is in some ways a thought exercise from an inexperienced viewer (but working on it) of these dials, tryin to get a better feel for what's right and wrong about them.

MSNWatch · Mar 31, 2016

Canuck
Here's a couple to add to your research, just in case the images may be meaningful. The dial on the left with the rose gold indexes is from a caliber 28.10 which is earlier than your 344. The other dial I believe is from a caliber 344.

You mean 354 since 344 is subseconds. And dial on the right is a redial.

Canuck · Mar 31, 2016

Yes! 354! You are correct! And I have owned that dial on the right for 50 years, and I can guarantee you it has not been refinished! You are incorrect!

tamura · Mar 31, 2016

Canuck
Yes! 354! You are correct! And I have owned that dial on the right for 50 years, and I can guarantee you it has not been refinished! You are incorrect!

A very old redial 😁

MSNWatch · Mar 31, 2016

Canuck
Yes! 354! You are correct! And I have owned that dial on the right for 50 years, and I can guarantee you it has not been refinished! You are incorrect!

Pretty comfortäble with my opinion.

Canuck · Mar 31, 2016

That dial is off a watch that was owned by my father before me. I am the second owner! I too am very comfortable in my opinion, say what you like! It is off an Omega that was marketed in Canada, by the (then) independent Omega agents.

MSNWatch · Mar 31, 2016

Canuck
That dial is off a watch that was owned by my father before me. I am the second owner! I too am very comfortable in my opinion, say what you like! It is off an Omega that was marketed in Canada, by the (then) independent Omega agents.

Redials were sometimes done routinely during servicing in those days frequently without even getting the owner's consent. The refinishing unfortunately wasn't particularly accurate.

kyle L · Mar 31, 2016

Canuck
That dial is off a watch that was owned by my father before me. I am the second owner! I too am very comfortable in my opinion, say what you like! It is off an Omega that was marketed in Canada, by the (then) independent Omega agents.

I agree with Mike...you can see the inconsistencies with the minute track numerals, especially with the 5s.

Canuck · Mar 31, 2016

A Scotsman convinced against his will is of the same opinion still! Let's drop it! I was only trying to help the OP. Perhaps I should pull the image!

hoipolloi · Apr 1, 2016

GregH
I've been tearing to learn by reading as much as I can in the forms and by looking at dials on ebay, etc.
I was looking around at various cal 351 & 354 Seamasters and came upon this cal 354 dial on ebay:

I've been trying to practice researching the details, so here is the process I have so far.
This dial is in a Ref 2635-7SC case and in the 13 million serial number, dating to 1952 on Chronomaddox.
I haven't seen too many dials in this pattern and most of them seem to be pretty obvious redials.
(I actually posted a black one on the obvious redials thread, that looked like it was painted with a hi-lighter).
This one looks like it could be original, but I still feel like I'm training my eye and .

I searched the Omega vintage site and Naligazone, and all the pieces seem to belong together correctly.
I've attached the reference at the end, with an image of a correct dial, but the statement "different types available".
I've also attached some variants I could find on the Omega vintage site, but not for this reference.
I've looked at AJTT as well and don't see this particular dial configuration. Google image search was not too helpful.

My main question is where would I go next to research the "different types available" when I see a dial like this?
Is there a "name" for this dial type? Are there other references I should be looking at for Seamasters?

I'm also curious to hear from the experts whether this dial is original.
I'll go out on a limb to say that I think it is based on patina and the lettering (be gentle, I'm new!).

Thanks for any thoughts!

1949 - 1954

SEAMASTER

CK 2635

FEATURES
INTERNATIONAL COLLECTION

1949 - 1954

DIMENSIONS

Ø32,5 mm

CASE

Stainless steel

CASE BACK TYPE

Screw-in

DIAL

Different types available

CRYSTAL

Armoured hesalite

BRACELET

Leather

FUNCTION

MOVEMENTS
TYPE

Automatic chronometer certified

CALIBER NUMBER

351 / 354

OTHER

Cal. 351
Created in 1949, 17 jewels, sometimes COSC
Cal. 354
Created in 1952, 17 jewels, COSC
Both with central sweep-second hand

TECHNICAL DATA
WATER RESISTANCE

30 meters

I go in a different way, that means the Seamaster font, not dial styles.
There were some earliest fonts that I should remember then the fonts from late 50's, early 60's, American market etc....

The font on the dial you asked has a low R and a coat hanger S but not the early font like this one.

This one is for early Seamaster 351 and 354 and this is the one that match your font

It was late 50's for American market.

VanDamme · Apr 1, 2016

Would the hands be original? The infill is roasted like some of the lume which could mean its been on the watch for some time but the minute hand does not reach the minute track even at the angle that it is at in the photo.

My observation about the text is that the Seamaster text seems slightly darker in places while the other text and minute track seems very consistent. Should the coat hanger "S" be touching the "e"?

GregH · Apr 1, 2016

hoipolloi
I go in a different way, that means the Seamaster font, not dial styles.
There were some earliest fonts that I should remember then the fonts from late 50's, early 60's, American market etc....

The font on the dial you asked has a low R and a coat hanger S but not the early font like this one.

This one is for early Seamaster 351 and 354 and this is the one that match your font

It was late 50's for American market.

Thanks, @hoipolloi this is helpful and interesting; there are certainly obvious differences, but it's really learning to read the subtleties that is that are of looking at these dials. I've seen you comments in other threads and thank you for posting here.

GregH · Apr 1, 2016

VanDamme
Would the hands be original?

Should the coat hanger "S" be touching the "e"?

Both interesting questions; I wonder what others think as well.
It also looks like the lower case s is closed and that the s and t touch as well on this dial.

GregH · Apr 1, 2016

hoipolloi
The font on the dial you asked has a low R and a coat hanger S but not the early font like this one.

I've been interested in your comparison @hoipolloi and looking at other dials based on the Seamster rather than other attributes

Would this dial fit into the "early" type you quote above? Or a different type (both S and s are different)? Or redial?

hoipolloi · Apr 1, 2016

I would say redial.

I also hate the straight M in AUTOMATIC (it's correct sometimes but "rare") 😁

TNTwatch · Apr 1, 2016

GregH
I've been interested in your comparison @hoipolloi and looking at other dials based on the Seamster rather than other attributes

Would this dial fit into the "early" type you quote above? Or a different type (both S and s are different)? Or redial?

hoipolloi
I would say redial.

I also hate the straight M in AUTOMATIC (it's correct sometimes but "rare") 😁

This looks exactly like the 2767 from Omega vintage website above including the *almost* same S and straight M. Another one having the same dial design and font types sold here last year: https://omegaforums.net/threads/seamaster-2767-waffle-dial.24076/. And another one: https://omegaforums.net/threads/black-waffle-dial-omega-seamaster-2767-cal-354.6638/.

research question on an Omega cal 354 dial

GregH

MSNWatch

GregH

Canuck

GregH

MSNWatch

Canuck

tamura

MSNWatch

Canuck

MSNWatch

kyle L

Canuck

hoipolloi

VanDamme

GregH

GregH

GregH

hoipolloi

TNTwatch

Similar threads

Question on an old (?) looking new dial

Omega Seamaster 14K 'Waffle-Crosshair Dial' Cal. 354 - Needing guidance. Is it a redial?

Legitimacy Help? Omega cal. 354 Seamaster

1952 Omega Seamaster 2635-8sc. PERFECT lume plots. INSANE dial. Railroad track. 354 cal BUMPER auto.

Rubbing under the rotor on an Omega Seamaster Cal 552?

Cal. 354 dial, what other calibers fits the dial feet's?