Show us your 2577 Seamaster (and a little introduction to the reference)

[MtV]

To the mods: I have to split this up in 2-3 posts, otherwise I get an error before I can hit "Create Thread", apologies for that.

"Too long, didn't read": A little introduction to the Seamaster reference 2577, please do share your examples.

We have a few “Show me your…”-threads here, and I find they’re a great source for inspiration and serve as a very useful reference. You’ve found a dial configuration that you haven’t seen before? Chances are, there’s another example in the collection of someone on OF. What we don’t have yet is such a thread for the Seamaster reference 2577 – in my opinion one that deserves it, maybe even more so than all the others. There is a staggering variety within the reference, possibly the biggest number of in-reference layouts of any Omega: Different calibers, case and case back styles, a number of distinct dials that I can’t count. It doesn’t even say Seamaster on all of them, and the others carry the famous name either on the top or the bottom half of the dial.


(A group shot that already hints at the diversity: White and black dials; plain and two-tone; even or with golf ball, honeycomb or hobnail structure; chronometer certified or not; steel or gold, … Picture of the COSC one with courtesy of @iamvr )


It's often mentioned as one of the or even the first Seamaster reference. I won’t go into this topic, as we have other threads discussing it and it seems that a few other references show even earlier serials. There is a bit of uncertainty about the actual introduction of the 2577s: While they’re often considered to have started in 1948 (according to AJTT, for example), the Omega vintage database (OVDB) itself says 1949. The earliest example I could find has a 11.5m serial and is currently with my watchmaker. I’ll apply for an extract when it returns. Theoretically, there should be earlier 2577s with pre-351 calibers: The designation “351” started in January 1949, before that the movement was still a 28.10T1 RA SC PC.

Anyway: Before I lose all readers going full-nerd on caliber designations, what I actually want to do is give an introduction to the differences within the 2577-reference and try to establish roughly when they were introduced, so that we have it all in one place. It’s one of the most common Seamasters, produced from ca. 1948-1955 in vast numbers, which means that questions about the legitimacy of examples come up quite frequently. I’ve noted down 60+ examples with serials and a few details over the years and maybe those numbers are interesting to the OF-public.


(Note that I have deleted 3-4 examples that were obvious “Franken-watches”. A dial without the Seamaster name on a cal. 354 that wasn’t introduced until 1952, for example, can’t be right)

Edited: Dec 12, 2022

 

[MtV]

Introduction: The 2577


The Dials

All examples say Swiss or Swiss Made below the 6-marker (with the possible exception of Fab. Suisse models) and have an applied Omega logo, matching the rest of the dial furniture.

Interestingly, the earliest examples, while they certainly are Seamasters, do not say so on the dial. They are rather scarce: Even including the sub-second sister 2576, I’ve only found 6 examples so far which you can find in the list below. The earliest is a 11.57m serial, and it seems that the Seamaster name found it’s way on the dial at the 12.1m serial mark.


(Possibly a 1948 example with the serial 11571899)


(A page from the 1950 Omega catalogue, posted elsewhere by @gatorcpa )

It was then introduced on the top half of the dial, until ca. the 12.6m-13.2m serials. If you have examples within that range, I’d love to see them and get the serial to narrow down the window a little further.


(An early 1950s 2577 with “Seamaster” in the top half of the dial. Note the typical “mirror”-numerals, while later examples switched to applied ones)

From 13.2m on, the Seamaster was always found on the bottom half, as in the majority of examples.

Do note that this is only valid for non-chronometer versions: The cal. 352RG chronometer certified ones showed “chronometer” on the top and “Seamaster” on the bottom much earlier. Omega also experimented with layouts, it seemed: “Seamaster” at the top and “chronometre” at the bottom was a legit variation. The “officially certified” was introduced in 1951 – before that, the dials simply read “chronometre”.


(A chronometre certified example by @iamvr – one of the nicest ones you’ll ever come across)

There is a variety of dial layouts that doesn’t allow for a comprehensive list, my guess is >100 variations.


The Movements

As mentioned previously, the reference likely started with the cal. 351 bumper automatic for regular examples and the cal. 352 for the chronometre versions. This seems to have lasted until ca. the 13,29m serial, at which point the updated cal. 354 was introduced. It replaced both previous calibers, as it was available in chronometre-spec, too.

The latest serial known to me so far is 13.96m. Since the reference was produced until 1955, I’d expect 14m serials to exist, too – maybe even ca. 14.5m serials.


The Cases

2577s were available in stainless steel, gold-capped and solid gold, both in yellow- and rose gold and 14k or 18k.

Stainless steel: The earlier cases had thinner lugs, lug holes for the spring bars (with only a few later exceptions), no bevels and occur ca. up to serials 13,72m. From then on, the lugs became much beefier and had a distinct bevel on their outside edge.

Gold-capped: The gold-capped cases went through the same design change as their steel siblings, with the exception that the thicker, beveled lugs on them were introduced a little later.

Solid gold cases were a different story: They had slightly thicker lugs from the start, albeit also without a bevel. Throughout the whole production range, their style was never updated to the thicker, beveled lugs. For comparison:



(Left to right: Early, thin lugs; slightly thicker lugs of a solid gold case; later, thicker, beveled lugs)

The screw case backs also went through different designs. Initially, the showed a circular groove and a circular brushing, which is lost on many examples due to polishing. With the introduction of the beveled lugs, the case back was also updated: It now gained a framed “SEAMASTER” in capital letters and lost the brushing. Roughly at the same time, another style of case back came to life: A polished “bubble back” style without the circular groove that can only be found on the sub-references 2577-22, -23, and -24. Again, those rules don’t apply for the solid gold examples.


(Clockwise from top left: Early case back with circular brushing and clearly visible circular groove; later, updated case back with framed “SEAMASTER” still visible in the top left corner; the “bubble back” case back without inscription or groove; a solid gold case back)


(A closer look at the framed “SEAMASTER”)


The Crown(s)

For once, a feature Omega did not change multiple time during the 7-year production. There’s exactly one correct style for the reference, at that is the famous “clover”-style crown.

Of course, many were replaced during services in the meantime, and only the examples with the flat feet Omega logo are truly period correct. Personally, I wouldn’t push a good 2577 with a service crown out of bed: Replacements are relatively easy to find.


(Clockwise from top left: top view on the clover crown; the period-correct standard example; a modern service item; a rather uncommon “Naiad”-example)


(No) Bracelets

This is a slightly odd topic, as I believe there isn’t actually a “correct” bracelet. I believe the beads of rice bracelet was introduced in the mid-50s, the 7077 flatlink in 1957. Accordingly, during the production of the 2577, both options were not available, even though they fit rather nicely:


(Left: A 7077 flatlink in 18k yellow gold. They also came in rose gold and, most commonly, in steel. The endlinks that connect them to the 2577-case are #4; Right: 5-row Beads of Rice bracelets are also a great fit and much more common. Early examples had a sliding clasp and unstamped end links, more commonly you’ll find 1502 bracelets with #11 end links. They all fit the same)

 

[MtV]

And now:

The show-and-tell

I’ll add a couple more to the ones shown above.

Breguet numerals are a among my favorite style features of 50s Omegas:




Another two-tone hobnail dial example. Note that, contrary to the one shown in my previous post, this one is gold-capped with unusually sharp lugs.




A better picture of the black hobnail dial shown above, one of my favorite watches




A recent arrival, and a rather uncommon one, the “golf ball dial”. It’s a funky piece, in numerous ways. The structure of the dial is more pronounced than the picture might make you believe. Then, there are a few oddities: The font of the numerals is, I believe, unique to this particular incarnation. The Omega logo is different from all other 2577s, in fact it might even be different to all other Omegas from the period. It’s not the regular flat feet one, but a much larger variant that we saw again in the 70s. It might also be the only non-Chronometer 2577 to come with those little gold dots as minute ticks. Either way: It’s even more fun than I imagined and I’m still stoked to have found one.

 

[Spruce]

Here’s my 1950 2577 cal 351

 

[MtV]

Spruce

Here’s my 1950 2577 cal 351

Nice example without the model name, do I have your serial in the list in my first post?

 

[padders]

Very nice example. I'll be surprised if that is 1950, I would have thought 1948 or 49 based on the lack of SM text. As above, share the first part of your serial and we can dig deeper.

Edited: Dec 12, 2022

 

[mac_omega]

Here are some of mine



a near mint 18K chronometre with cal 352, serial 12.52xxxx


a later SS one with serial 13.242xxx, cal. 354 with uncommon dial

I think 2577 was cross-referenced with ref 2520

 

[gatorcpa]

padders

Very nice example. I'll be surprised if that is 1950, I would have thought 1948 or 49 based on the lack of SM text. As above, share the first part of your serial and we can dig deeper.

See 1950 catalog posted by OP..



I don’t know exactly when Omega began to put the model name on the dial, my guess is 1951 or so.

Here’s my contribution, black waffle dial from 1952.



gatorcpa

 

[padders]

I did note that pic in the original post but I am personally a little wary of taking older advertisements that have artists impressions as gospel. Those have in the past lead to people claiming that non Pro dials are fine for twisted lug Speedmasters etc so while it does support that the text wasn't there in '50, (which indeed may be the case) I don't think it is fully conclusive just yet.

 

[Dan S]

No-Seamaster, 12,016,039, cal 351, SS, 2577-1.

 

[Spruce]

padders

Very nice example. I'll be surprised if that is 1950, I would have thought 1948 or 49 based on the lack of SM text. As above, share the first part of your serial and we can dig deeper.

Thank you, and I’m more than happy to. It’s 12099650. I’d have liked it to be a 1949 number, which would have made it a ‘birth year' watch but, given that I have this, and it is nice, I’ve decided to adopt my wife’s practice and remove a year (or two in her case) from my actual year of birth

 

[padders]

Fair enough, that is the highest serial seen so far without the text so I guess you might be right!

 

[Spruce]

MtV

Nice example without the model name, do I have your serial in the list in my first post?

Yes, it’s at number 7 in your batting order

 

[Bruce235]

mac_omega

Here are some of mine



a near mint 18K chronometre with cal 352, serial 12.52xxxx


a later SS one with serial 13.242xxx, cal. 354 with uncommon dial

I think 2577 was cross-referenced with ref 2520

Here is mine with a redial unfortunately, but similar look to the above nice chronometer. Missing Swiss made and lume, but has same markers and blued second hand. 2577-10 gold filled, serial 12.67m, 351.

 

[Olhenry56]

Thanks for making this thread. I have none, but I hope to have one at some point. I sorely miss the bumper movement I had in my first Omega purchase which I returned as a redial. This is a great resource for us newbies.

Edited: Dec 12, 2022

 

[cristos71]

Here's my contribution....the only one I have at the moment...but I think I need one of those chronometer versions asap

 

[Spruce]

Hi @MtV,
Just reflecting on this amazing thread and your research but wondering where you got the information about my watch, including it at number 7.
Thanks

 

[alalalalongines]

Great thread. Love this reference.
If I remember correctly, the thinner lugs stainless steel case has no removable bezel, while the thick lugs ss case has a removable bezel. Am I right?

 

[MtV]

mac_omega

Here are some of mine

a near mint 18K chronometre with cal 352, serial 12.52xxxx

I think 2577 was cross-referenced with ref 2520

Yup, for solid gold examples, I believe. That 18k Chronometre of yours is in an uncanny condition. Absolutely stunning!

Dan S

No-Seamaster, 12,016,039, cal 351, SS, 2577-1.

Awesome, thanks! Will add it to the list and update it on occasion in the first post.

cristos71

Here's my contribution....the only one I have at the moment...but I think I need one of those chronometer versions asap

Yeah, same here, seeing not one but two awesome examples by @iamvr , too.

Spruce

Hi @MtV,
Just reflecting on this amazing thread and your research but wondering where you got the information about my watch, including it at number 7.
Thanks

I’m sorry, I just had to know, so… You remember that one morning in July when you woke up and the window was open, you thought someone must’ve broken in but nothing was amiss, so you concluded you must’ve forgotten to close it?

…or I just used advanced google-fu and found it here:
https://omegaforums.net/threads/wruw-today.567/page-9681#post-2031225

A alalalalongines

Great thread. Love this reference.
If I remember correctly, the thinner lugs stainless steel case has no removable bezel, while the thick lugs ss case has a removable bezel. Am I right?

Good point, and yes.

 

[Spruce]

Well, that’s great research.

I bought it on eBay a few years back.

This is a better photo.



The starting price was £400 but no one else bid and I got it at that price.

I was worried that I’d missed something in the photos and that no one else bid for it because they’d all realised something that I hadn’t

Edited: Dec 12, 2022