Seeking learned opinions about Seamaster Cal. 354 Chronometer dial.

[paulm]

Hi, everyone. I'm new to OF and looking forward to what any of you can share with me about this watch's dial. I bought the watch a little over 20 years ago; my second vintage watch purchase, found on a Seattle jeweler's website. (Not the savviest watch buyer at the time, but there you go.) About a year later, the crown and stem needed to be replaced. As the photos show, the movement is a cal. 354 chronometer in a yellow gold-capped 2577-11 case. It has a low 14,0xx,xxx serial number dating it to 1954. Some of you will recall that in that long-past era, Omega was generous with requests for information from their archives about vintage watches. A simple email to Customer Service netted me the information, gratis, that the watch was originally sold in Colombia, South America. So that was cool. Although it can't be seen in any of the photos, the Ω symbol is etched into the crystal above the second hand pivot. Now, about the dial. Under a loupe, and I hope in the photos, it looks to me like old lume in the open ends of the shark tooth markers and the pips at 12, 3, 6, and 9, and to me the application looks too good and uniform for a refinished dial. There is also old lume in the H and M hands. I worry, however, that because "Officially Certified" is not on the dial, "Seamaster" is above the hands, and "Chronomètre" is below the hands the dial is definitely not original. But then I also wonder whether there aren't original dials with this variation. Thus, I come to OF. Thanks.

 

[ConElPueblo]

I would have to go with redialed, but done well. The missing 'officially certified', the slightly off fonts, the lume pips at 3-6-9-12 and the minutes/second track stand out for me.

Good looking watch nonetheless. And it is does have a chronometer-rated movement, most importantly!

Edited to add: I have seen correct Seamasters of that era missing the 'officially…' text, but none with this configuration.

 

[MSNWatch]

Definitely a redial. Many issues but mainly the printing is too heavy and the fonts are incorrect.

 

[Maskelyne]

This dial must be "pad printed" in my opinion. Look at the raised text/fonts and maybe someone with more knowledge of printing techniques will fill in with some more information. Here is a comparison between my 2577 (non chronometer) and OP,s.

 

[Spruce]

Again, for comparison purposes, reliably assured that this is an original 1954 354 non-chronometer model.

 

[High Hope]

ConElPueblo

I would have to go with redialed, but done well. The missing 'officially certified', the slightly off fonts, the lume pips at 3-6-9-12 and the minutes/second track stand out for me.

Good looking watch nonetheless. And it is does have a chronometer-rated movement, most importantly!

Edited to add: I have seen correct Seamasters of that era missing the 'officially…' text, but none with this configuration.

Hey, I'm starting to learn this game! Novice me thought it was a redial too.

 

[paulm]

Thanks very much all of you for taking the time to give my watch a hard look, share comparison examples, and for ConElPueblo's generous look on the bright side. OF is an outstanding resource.