A number in the region that you quote would date about 1901. And since the first Omega wristwatch (according to AJTT) dated 1900 (not counting converted pocket watches), you're probably about right! It would be an unusual find....
Hamish, you have a spectacular watch!
When you visit a Collector's forum, you get these weird opinions that have nothing to do with beauty or wearability or history, only a comparison to the day it left the factory.
View your watches history as part of it's story, part of what makes it yours!
Who has gazed at this the same as you?
What was their story?
That is what watch collecting is about.
Movement looks older than the case, is the first digit a 4?
How can that be?
Any shot of inside caseback?
Yes the first digit is 4. I have sent these pics to omega's customer service and they came back with the year. At the OB service center they wasnt able to find any reference number.
Obviously the caliber is much older than the case. I doubt the case is Omega. Dial is repainted.
Ok. It could be. But based on what you came to this conclusion?
Soory for the bad news.
Well, the case is a late 1940's model, inconsistent with the caliber early serial number. You can also see that a spacer ring has been inserted in the case so that the smaller caliber would fit in. Is the case signed by OMega inside? If yes, the serial number engraved Inside should ive you the case production year.
The logo and name on the dial don't have the right size shape and fonts compared to what Omega produced. It would be interesting to see if the feet have been cut and the dial glued on the caliber.
How do you wear that on your wrist?
my oldest Omega is not so old,but i think 1944 is ok for posting it.
