Seamaster 2846-1 SC without Seamaster text on the dial?

padders

The Seamasters without the text were produced between 1947 and 1949, I had one myself, a 2577. Ive never seen a straight 2846, introduced 1955 without the SM text on the dial.

gatorcpa

I have a page from a Swiss 1950 Omega Catalog which shows that you are correct.

However, watches in this catalog were likely produced in late 1949, so their serial numbers were still in the high 11M range.

I think the real answer here is that there were likely models made without “Seamaster” on the dial that were distributed in some markets, but not in others during the 1950’s. Certain case references may have dials with or without the name.

The fact that many case references had interchangeable dials and that Omega never kept track of dial styles muddies up the waters even further.
gatorcpa

S Smasch

I had somewhat the same issue. Seemed like the seamaster but nothing written. Plus a gold version. It was my grandfathers. Don't know when he purchased but its been sitting in a box since 1971.

padders

“Pre Seamaster” is a debatable term for the waterproof watches Omega made circa 1945-1947. An omega Seamaster made in the late 50s without SM text in the dial is generally a redial, especially if black. Or not a Seamaster at all. That said I don’t know that model. Is it particularly small? The 470 movement is normally seen on ladies watches as at 25mm it’s smaller than normal. It may be that they did sell 31-33mm watches that differed from the norm.

Looking at the listing, does it actually have a Seamaster hippocampus back or is it plain? There is one pic that shows the back and it looks plain. There were examples of the 14473 with plain backs which are not Seamasters, just part of the International Collection. Maybe you have one of those.the dial doesn’t look obviously redone, but the vast majority of vintage black dials have been.

Giovanni2023

Quick question: would this watch use radium in its luminance? I'm assuming it's safe as long as the case remains sealed.

MtV

Yes, it’s radium.

Dial looks ok to me on first glance. What’s definitely not ok is the bracelet, which is a cheap aftermarket repro, not an Omega product. Given that these have a value of 200-250$ when original (and, for an honest person, zero value if counterfeit) I’d personally return it for that reason alone.

padders

Radium (or it’s Radon daughter product) isn't a gamma emitter, it kicks out alpha particles which are nasty if ingested or inhaled but not really an issue sealed in a watch if the lume is stable. Alpha can’t even penetrate the crystal. The reason radium lume was canned was more to protect watchmakers and watch assemblers than end users.

MtV

Yes, it’s radium.

Dial looks ok to me on first glance. What’s definitely not ok is the bracelet, which is a cheap aftermarket repro, not an Omega product. Given that these have a value of 200-250$ when original (and, for an honest person, zero value if counterfeit) I’d personally return it for that reason alone.

MtV

Well, you have eBay on your side. You can always return it even after it’s arrived - the counterfeit bracelet alone should make that pretty easy.

padders

if it’s an original unrestored dial, it’s radium, though only the hands look like they have any. Tritium wasn’t used until ~1962. Personally a bit of low energy gamma doesn’t worry me, and that’s all you’ll get from Radium and its products. An hour in the mid day sun without screen or a transatlantic flight are more damaging and the alpha is fully attenuated. You seem to have some scientific understanding which is good, but to reject every radioactive lume dial is a bit self defeating since it reduces your pre 1997 options massively.