Hi folks

This watch found its way to me unintentionally.



And I kind of like it. But I'll be damned if I can find one of these with a dial exactly like this. Also not sure if I'll ever wear it (I got my gramps 5-years-younger-even-more-buggered-champagne-dialed-seamaster)...

What's uncommon and that I could not find in google images or in the omega vintage database or any googling of this reference, is the position of the hardware at 6,9,12 o'clock. The handful that I have found (and there are not many), these arrows are about 1 or so mm closer to the center of the dial, than this one. I.e. the pointy tips align in a circle on the dial, but this one the backs align in a circle on the dial.
SN is round 1648xxxx, so about 1958/9. Champagne dial reflects light magically . I am certain this is not a redial (just look at those gorgeous serifs)...


(detritus everywhere)

Only bad is that it appears someone was careless many years ago, and there are some marks in the clear coat (?) between 12 and 1 ... this is hardly noticeable to the naked eye...



If the 6,9, and 12 o'clock markers were removed and reapplied, I can not see it in the paint or finish at all and whoever did it did a fantastic job, many many years ago. But I am no expert...hence I ask...

What are your thoughts on this dial (other than the idiot marks between 12~1)? Anybody have a similar one?

Thanks for reading!

Best regards,
E

 

Well, it has had a relume at some point.

There is one more here - note that it hasn't got any lume:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/OMEGA-SEAM...f-2849-6SC-1958-59-w-15918-Used-/273055950786Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

 

Thanks Troels. Yes, exposing to a UV burst shows the hands glow like radium but the hour plots glow like tritium...didn't mention this as its not a sales listing Crazy price that eBay one...

 

Yes, but the hands tell the story. The one that you posted has non-luminous hands, while the OP's did. So there likely would have been lume on his dial. Of course that doesn't mean that it wasn't re-lumed.

 

Or the hands were changed when the owner wanted a watch he could read in the dark.

I don't think that's necessarily what happened though...

 

Yes, always a possibility, though they look quite correct in this instance.

 

Indeed. I don't recall seeing many 2849s without lume, by the way.

 

May be the dial base still original, but Im sure scripts are reprinted.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Oh yes, the "Seamaster" & "Calendar" are both wrong. And you see the minute markers at 3h, they cant be that close to date window, at 6h "Swiss Made" also cant below applied marker.

 

Are you saying they are wrong because the font's don't match some other seamaster fonts that you have/seen?

 

This is the correct "Seamaster" of that time:

 

If what you say is true, and they kept the exact same font through all seamasters for many years, then whoever reprinted this did a job on par with (or better than) Omega IMHO ... sure the perspective is slightly different giving some perspective-distortion, through a scratched crystal, and this is a much better resolved 'Seamaster'...but still, this was not done by hand, and if it is a 'reprint' there is nothing in the texture or color of the dial to indicate this...

 

Still different than original, take a overlook at the coat-hanger S and the last "r".
And I said, the most important factor to spot redialed is minute marker. Yours: minute markers at 3h are stick to the date window. In original dial, there are space between date window & minute markers.
Minute markers are the hardest work for redialer to make them right.

 

I'll say that on my two 2849s, the Seamaster script is indeed different from the text on @eugeneandresson's example. Not much, but different. The biggest difference is the positioning of the minute hashes; on mine they are further to the edge of the dial while they are moved closer to the center on the one in the OP.

I couldn't say if this was due to a different dial manufacturer or later redialing.

 

Thanks @No Mercy and @ConElPueblo very much for your inputs.

Have one of you blokes ever seen a redial nearly as good as this? (if that's what this is -> despite some minor mechanical differences as pointed out, I remain skeptical, due to what I see with my eyes (and its mostly your fault for teaching me this here on the OF ) )

 

Yes, I have seen plenty were it's the wrong "style" of redial - wrong era fonts, etc. Some are service dials, others have been printed with a die that doesn't suit the reference. While I believe yours could have been redialed at some point, I am not completely certain.

Here are some others:


(link)



(link)

 

I have this 2849-7 SC, cal. 503, 165245xx serial from around 1958

 

Second one -> minute track touches the date window...

And yours has the different positioned 6,9,12 o'clock markers (which was the only concern I had with mine)...
The SN on mine (FWIW) is 1648xxxx (updated the OP).

 

I think that it is odd that this should be your only concern. It is found, as you can see on the ones I posted, on a number of watches. It's the text and minute hashes (note that they are also placed differently than on yours on @tdn-dk's example) that are problematic, IMO.

Hopefully it is a legit variant