You can often get more for selling watch and bracelet separately than as one item. Someone looking for a bracelet will pay over the odds for it, whereas the absence of an original bracelet doesn’t detract so much from the value of a watch because people are buying the timepiece not the strap.
... Getting an abstract and trying to do the detective work on why that watch was stamped with numbers would have me intrigued....
I just bought a very similar looking 165.024-64 (no caseback engraving) and the extract just came back as this:
You never know with these things...
@john_coburg , you might want to double check the chrono24 listings from the seller. "Your" watch isn't a non subreference 165.024 serial 229x from january 1966. He has two listnings and has mix/matched the text for these. The text for yours match his other listning for a 165.024-64.
That's one thing.
And then you might want to look at this WoK november auction, lot 139, where your watch was under the hammer. This thread (and the chrono24 listning) is missing the money shot - the movement picture and serial. Below is one from the WoK auction. So "yours" has a serial 24723xxx, which is an ok range for a HF non-subreference 165.024 (but no guarantee for match in the archieves mind you).
BTW: You can see that the upper bridge has the engraved text from a certified chronometer movement. And the cal. 552 wasn't and shouldn't have that text. So upper bridge has been wrongly changed for one.
The serial points to a production in the summer of 1967, and IMO that is to late for the baton hands and to early for the B5 type bezel. So unlikely that the watch left the factory like this - IMO!
Whether the price is still fair I won't judge, but something extra for you to consider and check up upon.
Be careful out there ...
@john_coburg , you might want to double check the chrono24 listings from the seller. "Your" watch isn't a non subreference 165.024 serial 229x from january 1966. He has two listnings and has mix/matched the text for these. The text for yours match his other listning for a 165.024-64.
That's one thing.
And then you might want to look at this WoK november auction, lot 139, where your watch was under the hammer. This thread (and the chrono24 listning) is missing the money shot - the movement picture and serial. Below is one from the WoK auction. So "yours" has a serial 24723xxx, which is an ok range for a HF non-subreference 165.024 (but no guarantee for match in the archieves mind you).
BTW: You can see that the upper bridge has the engraved text from a certified chronometer movement. And the cal. 552 wasn't and shouldn't have that text. So upper bridge has been wrongly changed for one.
The serial points to a production in the summer of 1967, and IMO that is to late for the baton hands and to early for the B5 type bezel. So unlikely that the watch left the factory like this - IMO!
Whether the price is still fair I won't judge, but something extra for you to consider and check up upon.
Be careful out there ...
...He apparently has the extract (showing 1966)
But you think that the watch is from january 1966 because of the extract claim. It isn't. That extract and date is for the serial 229x, reference 165.024-64, his other listning.
Just pointed out and meant that your's is a 165.024 (non-subreference) with serial 247x, and that is not from january 1966, but from mid 1967.
Thank you very much indeed for this excellent investigative work. But i'm a little lost.
I can certainly see he's sloppily mixed up the text in the two listings - pretty poor.
But you're saying 'mine' isn't a non-subreference.. what does that mean? you mean it isn't a 165.024-XX ? I don't think he ever claimed it was?
And later on you mention the correct serial (247xxxx rather than 229xxxx) is ok for a HF non-subref, in which case, this watch is probably okay as a 165.024, as it is/has always been described (although no guarantee) - so i'm not sure i see the real problem quite yet?
Re. the engraved text on the upper bridge - yes, this certainly sounds more worrying. Makes me suspicious about the whole watch now.
He apparently has the extract (showing 1966), so as we previously conceded, the hands and the bezel might be replacements... but for £4k, perhaps that didn't matter all that much, given they look to be by Omega.
I agree the listing mix-up and the replaced upper bridge are additional warning signs... maybe i'll ask for £500 off and see what he says.
Meanwhile, thank you very much for taking the time to write this up - it is much appreciated.
John
And while i'm here... would anyone have an easy way of fixing the bezel that doesn't quite line up properly? I can't quite ignore it!
And while i'm here... would anyone have an easy way of fixing the bezel that doesn't quite line up properly? I can't quite ignore it!
