This is my first post and I wanted to say hi as previous experience tells me I will be on here quite a lot!

My girlfriend bought me my first vintage Omega as a wonderful first Christmas present, after I had explained my regret at selling an AT (2503.33.400) previously.

Now, this was a first present from someone I love, so it has enormous sentimental value and thus I'm not bothered by over polishing or anything else too much- as long as it's not fake! If she had bought me an Invicta or Orient I would have made it my daily wearer on sentiment alone, but was obviously pleasantly surprised and extremely grateful for this!

It came from OCwatchco/jmj jewellers via eBay as we are based in London. It didn't work and I have since had it repaired and serviced by my trusted watch repairer- and ocwatchco paid immediately- and while this was an inconvenience I am happy that the watch is serviced by someone I trust. But he is too busy to talk to anyone save for scrawling the following down for me:

The model number is 14770 3sc (what does the 3sc refer to?)
Ref is 19441348

And I don't know anything else! I'm guessing early 60s but don't know or understand the whole gold capped thing- is it gold plated or like having a gold bezel? Would like to know year, any details and value (although obviously not selling!) and if there is anything wrong- I have seen unfavourable posts about ocwatchco- then be gentle with me! Haha

Many thanks and once again- hello!

 

Hello back, and welcome!
SC=sweep second hand, basically. It's from 1959. There's all the info you want here is the Omega database: http://www.omegawatches.com/planet-omega/heritage/vintage-omegas/vintage-watches-database?ref=14445
As you will see, the dial has been refinished (compare the 'S' on yours to the OVD). Hands appear incorrect.
But as you say, it's got sentimental value and we thank her on your behalf for thinking 'watch' when buying gifts!

 

Mine is the 14770 as opposed to the 14740 but using that site(thank you for the link) either a 562 or a 563 movement, guessing it would probably be the 562 due to the age of the watch?

It doesn't have a picture for 14770, but mine is not all gold, only the top bit and that site says its "solid 18k"...

Ps
Might have to start looking for a dial and hands if they are not correct!

 

The Omega database is famous for minor inaccuracies and it's possible that they made a gold cap/ss version (like your), too. Ditto the hands. There will be someone here with better, more accurate records and may weigh it as to the exact format of your watch. I sent you the 14740 because is was close to yours and had a picture, of course.

 

Ah- many thanks! I am really grateful to you and anyone who has any info/opinion. I am like a child with a new toy at the minute haha and having it so briefly before giving it up for repair/service has only built my desire up even more!

I'm not sure I mind the over polishing to be honest- I don't mind my dinks and scratches, but other peoples would annoy me more than a rounded edge or two. But I know I'm in a minority!

...but I don't fully understand the whole redial thing. Do they file/strip down an original dial and repaint it? Seems like a lot of work when resale values are relatively low?

 

Hello and Welcome

Congratulation to you and your lovely gift

I might be wrong, but the font on this De Ville, the S in Seamaster feels like a redial to me, but Im new to this so I could very well be wrong. Wait for the guys with experience to chip in about the redial.

Regards Daniel

 

+1

 

There is a lot of wrong information above Fatsam! I disagree that this dial is a redial, your pictures are not clear enough to make a clear determination, if you could take a clearer picture of the dial using the macro setting on your camera that would be very helpful. And as a ref. 14770 that is not a chronometer, according to the OVDB, it must be a cal. 563 made on or after 1965. One last thing, many times the OVDB will show a reference one way...in this case as 18k gold when in fact the reference came in other iterations, such as gold capped or stainless steel (it is somewhat incomplete). I hope this is helpful to you!

EDIT: Omega did not start putting De Ville on the Seamaster until 1963!

 

Hijak is far more expert than I am, of course, and I'm happy acknowledge this; however, the mention of ocwatchco, a perennial in the 'Worst Redials' thread, and the rounded 's', rather than the 'coat hanger' 's' were what made me think that it may be a re-dial. I can't recall when the shape changed, but I had thought that it was 'coat hanger' at that point, as in the similar model in the OVD.
As often noted here, dial authenticity is can be hard to access from photographs.

 

The coat hanger "S" was not used as late as this watch (1965+). I have three Seamasters from this time frame (De Ville era) and all have the original posters type of "S." Ocwatch is notorious for redials, this is true, and this certainly could be one but without better pics it is very difficult to say. One thing that can be said for sure is that the crown is wrong but that isn't too big a deal, otherwise it's a nice daily driver!

 

Thanks everyone- haven't got the watch and only have an iphone to take pics with at the moment but have zoomed in- not sure of this helps but its best I can do for a few days!

Looking at a serial number chart I found 19441348 puts it at 1962? Which would make it a 562 calibre?


I trust your input and am massively grateful for your help!

 

Boy that "automatic" on the dial looks suspect sad to say. And the De Ville doesn't look like it has the serifs on the letters like it should.

the serial # can be +-2 years off from that chart sometimes more, really the only way to know for sure is to look inside. Since this is a front loader, the movement comes out thought the crystal, I would recommend you leave this to a qualified watchmaker.

 

SWISS MADE should be below the six o'clock figure not beside it as on the OPs dial

 

Oh dear, will try and post a clearer pic when I can, but guess you are all right and its a redial- and thanks anyway.

With regard to the age of the watch- would I be right in saying 1962 using that chart or is it later do you think? And does that mean its a 562 calibre if its 1962 but would have to be a non cosc 563 calibre if its later?

Sorry if I'm being a pain just trying to work it out for myself while taking in board all the info from you guys!

Thanks again

 

Omega did not start putting De Ville on the dials until 1963 but since this is most likely a redial who knows. Like I said above only way to know for sure is to look.

 

Redial. Incorrect crown also - it's too thick (or tall depending on who describes it).

However, since your girl gave it to you you should keep wearing it and hunt for correct parts in the mean time.

 

Correct and discussed already...in the meantime it's a fine daily driver.

 

General question. I read Omega took great strides to assure their second and minute hands were right on minutes or inner circles on pie pans. If not that accurate, could you assume changed out hands? Also, I notice a lot of Omega Seamaster Deville hands are oxidixed. This puts me off to a lot of otherwise good prospects. Any thoughts?

 

The finish on the hands, particularly the second hand, seems to deteriorate faster than the rest of the watch for some reason unknown to me. I have one Longines that's almost perfect except for the second hand.

 

The dial looks to be redone as the "S" in Seamaster is different and the hands are a different style.

Also, it looks like a Deville dial in a Seamaster case/movement as the Deville's didn't show up in Omega's line until after '63. As far as the case, it looks like a jeweler used a gold electroplate touch up pen to cover the crown, bezel and lugs.

Keep the watch, get rid of the girl. LOL!