Seamaster bezel cut-always at crown area

Posts
920
Likes
3,833
Bad photos but a very nice example of a Cal 751 Seamaster Sparkle Chronometer in steel

https://www.ebay.com/itm/115707768579

Maybe its the poor photos or maybe is just me, but doesn’t it appear that there a chunk missing from the bezel near the 4 o’clock index?
Edited:
 
This website may earn commission from Ebay sales.
Posts
57
Likes
127
Maybe its the poor photos or maybe is just me, but doesn’t it appear that there a chunk missing from the bezel near the 4 o’clock index?

I could be wrong but I think that most seamasters with a bezel have that groove, however, this bezel is misaligned and that groove should be in line with the crown. This groove does look quite large though.
 
Posts
128
Likes
1,061
I could be wrong but I think that most seamasters with a bezel have that groove, however, this bezel is misaligned and that groove should be in line with the crown. This groove does look quite large though.
In my opinion, Seamasters with that groove are modificated to accomodate an incorrect replaced crown. The original bezel didn't have the groove.
Based on those poor quality pics, it's difficult to tell if there's a groove or not on the bezel.
 
Posts
57
Likes
127
In my opinion, Seamasters with that groove are modificated to accomodate an incorrect replaced crown. The original bezel didn't have the groove.
Based on those poor quality pics, it's difficult to tell if there's a groove or not on the bezel.

I'm not sure that is the case, every 166.010 and 168.024 I've seen have had that groove. Including both of mine, and both have there original crowns.

My 166.010


my 168.024


This 168.024 belongs to another OF member but you get the idea.
 
Posts
8,355
Likes
68,611
I’ve looked carefully at my 166.010 and can’t see it …..

 
Posts
128
Likes
1,061
I'm not sure that is the case, every 166.010 and 168.024 I've seen have had that groove. Including both of mine, and both have there original crowns.
My 166.010 doesn't have. Your 3 examples show different size of that groove. I can be wrong, but again, in my opinion that's not original.
 
Posts
57
Likes
127
My 166.010 doesn't have. Your 3 examples show different size of that groove. I can be wrong, but again, in my opinion that's not original.

All good p_rover, does your 166.010 also have the original scalloped crown like mine?

Trying to get to the bottom of this, I found these two old omega catalogue photos. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me but to me it does look like a notch near the crown (could just be the crappy resolution). Either way have a good one mate.👍

 
Posts
33,527
Likes
38,197
Moved this out to its own thread for discussion
 
Posts
128
Likes
1,061
@Hipp seeing those catalogues pics I'm more confused about 😟
I really thought that original ones were plain.
Anyway I really like 166.010/168.024 with or without that notch on bezel.
Maybe someone more expert than me could solve the case.
 
Posts
8,355
Likes
68,611
Thanks for moving it Mods.
Although initially I couldn’t work out what I’d done wrong. 😟😕
Happily, nothing
 
Posts
920
Likes
3,833
Thanks @dsio for moving the post here!

I wasn’t clear about it in my first original post when I mentioned “chunk missing” but what I was alluding to, and I could be mistaken, but it looks like the Bezel of the OP watch may be damaged. It appears that the outer perimeter of the bezel is jagged which makes me think it's damaged.



I have two 166.028’s that have the same or very similar case and bezel design as the OP watch, which IIRC the OP is a 168.023. They double stamped these cases similar to the 166.028 that I have so I usually get the numbers mixed up. Anyways back to my point. In the third photo of the eBay listing(shown above) the bezel of the watch near the 3 to 4 o’clock indices appears to be chipped/jagged, but it may just be the photo. Posting a photo of my two 166.028 references to show the bezel does not have a cutout that interrupts the perimeter of the bezel at the top facet of the bezel.



it jumped out to me as I’m used to seeing that as one of my watches has a similar chip in the bezel in almost the same spot. See photo below.



@Hipp I have seen other references that have a cutout in the bezel to receive the crown which interrupts the out perimeter of the bezel, but it doesn’t look like that happens with this case design. While there is a very small cut out in the bezel to receive the crown in it’s pushed in position that can only be seen when looking at the watch from a certain position. Located on what I would call the backside plane of the bezel. But when looking at my watches from the front (similar to the angles of the photographs for the eBay listing) I wasn't able to see the cut out or even a hint of it.

See right above the crown:


Looking at the watch front the side to see that there is a crisp angle where the facets of the bezel meet just above the crown. The cutout only appears to be on the the backside plane of the bezel.

Edited:
 
Posts
2,555
Likes
3,676
Thanks guys, I just had to look. My 166.028 has a small cut out for the crown, but it is not visible from the front at all.
 
Posts
4,593
Likes
10,806
I could be wrong but I think that most seamasters with a bezel have that groove,

And you are wrong, with all due respect 😁
 
Posts
57
Likes
127
And you are wrong, with all due respect 😁

Happy to be corrected @janice&fred. Could you just clarify which part of my statement is wrong? I did misspeak and should have said some seamaster references with bezels have that groove.

The Issue I'm trying to figure out now is whether bezels with grooves are original or not.
 
Posts
8,355
Likes
68,611
Happy to be corrected @janice&fred. Could you just clarify which part of my statement is wrong? I did misspeak and should have said some seamaster references with bezels have that groove.

The Issue I'm trying to figure out now is whether bezels with grooves are original or not.
I think what we’re saying is that the original bezels were intact but subsequently altered.
 
Posts
57
Likes
127
I think what we’re saying is that the original bezels were intact but subsequently altered.

This is the third catalogue photo I've found which looks to show a groove where the crown is. Would this not suggest that the groove is original? Or am I to believe they were all altered?

Edited:
 
Posts
8,355
Likes
68,611
I appreciate your point but whose catalogue is it? Clearly not Omega’s