Seller ignored my bid and sold to another party for a lower price so this beauty got away. I like the case, and the golden furniture on a brushed dial. I am almost certain that it is a cal. 565, but can anyone help me with the reference? No visceral photos alas.
Maybe reference 14701? Wouldn't be a 565 though. Edit: Maybe I'm wrong about the 565, perhaps they did come with that caliber. The couple I've owned were equipped with 562.
No, you're not wrong, I think I am! It looks like dauphine hands went along with cal. 562. Does it match a 14701?
Yes it does!Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network Thanks a lot, @Gordon Heavyfoot !
I reckon the 14701's are great, simple watches. Sadly mine has been overpolished but as it was my first vintage buy I love it all the same. Would like a 14700 at some point too...the simpler no date dial looks very cool
Agree, the no-date version is the one to go for, visually and in daily use. On some photos, the 14700 seems like its lugs are a little wider - but with the ref.numbers I would expect the cases to be identical. What do you think?
I always imagined they'd be the same but haven't seen one in 'real life'. The biggest issue I've found is that every 14700 that comes up (on eBay etc) has the 701 style dauphine hands when they are supposed to have alpha.
Going by the omega site they have 'alpha' hands rather than the wider, simpler dauphine hands like mine has. (Reference photo from omega archive)
Is it me or does the omega archive watch look like a redial? That might explain why the hands are alpha rather than dauphine.
I did wonder that when I saw it but also wonder if it's just due to them manipulating a lo Res image and that has made the black text jump out like that. I'm hoping the archive is pretty accurate but maybe that's a bad assumption?