Would like to show you a watch I bought at auction a few weeks ago with a most magnificent (IMHO) dial and a mystery case reference. It looks like a 166.020 Seamaster with the expected cal. 562 and has a 18k case with english import hallmarks in addition to the usual swiss ones, but is engraved at the back 166025 SC-62. Reference 166.025 belongs to the Baby Ploprof, so it can't be right and I am wondering if anyone has seen a misprint (?) like that by Omega, ever. On the other hand I'm not quite sure it is a 166020 because the shape of the lugs is a bit different here.

Anyway, most important for me is this 18k Flückiger striped dial in exceptional condition (in contrast to the case back which is a bit battered and polished). Here's the pics (a number of which are from the Watchguy, my watchmaker):

 

1660025 is the right case reference for this watch, so there's no mystery here.

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks @Archer. Couldn't find 166025 or 1660025 in the database and Google is no help either. This seller claims about a similar watch that the case reference was used by mistake and it was really a 1660020. And there is the thing with the Baby Ploprof which has the case reference 1660250.

 

That is a Flückiger nice looking watch! Congrats. If I could trouble you, what size is the case?

 

I don’t think the seller knows what they are talking about. This case reference is for a Cal. 562, so it matches up just fine.

Edit to add case description from the Omega Extranet:

055BA1660025 | YEL. GOLD CASE 18CT 2N18 CAL. 0562

And just so you know 1660025 and 1660250 are completely different references...

 

It's 34mm.

 

@Archer regarding model 166025 SC-62
I have bought an omega with the same model number in the case back, movement 562, 18k gold. This model seems Very hard to find / identify: in fact this is the only article I’ve found on the net!
How can I find out more - you mention the Onega Extranet ? How can I find / access further information in there ?
I’ve attached photos - different dial to @aprax (yet both rare?) but very similar stamps in the case.
Could .025 (as opposed to .020) indicate a ‘custom’ model or production?
Regards, Neil

 

The number '5' is the code number for UK. France is 3, Brazil is 9.

.025 instead of .020 just means that the case was manufactured in UK. This reference was later replaced by 166.5020 with the '5' set at a different place.

166.020 is a Swiss reference and can only designate a case manufactured in Switzerland by Centrales Boîtes S.A. and not Dennison or Shackman.

 

I think you might be a bit off-piste there @PlainVanilla

If it were English produced, it would have been 166.5020 not 166.025.

The gold production marks are definitely Swiss

Both watches appear to have UK import marks (for some reason ) plus the OWC stamp.
It's possible they were imported by OWC rather than exported directly by Omega

The left hand symbol is the import mark

 

Very interesting. So maybe the position of the '5' might mean UK made for .520 and imported by OWC in the UK for .025?

 

It would be .5020 if a British made .020.

It's possible but difficult to speculate as there are only two known examples, so far, so the sample range is somewhat inconclusive - and whilst both 18k cases, one of them is a straight Seamaster with a fancy gold dial and the other has a fairly 'standard' Seamaster de Ville dial.
Both have the '62' date designation, so place them in a particular period in time.

OWC was originally a company set up in the UK by Omega in the 20s and it may still have been used by Omega to import gold cases into the UK in the 60s.
The fact that @Archer can locate the reference on the Omega intranet means it was an officially designated reference.
(it doesn't seem to appear in the OVDB)

It would be odd for Omega to bother creating a special reference for a single country delivery.
My guess is that if the 166.020 was generally produced in SS, it is more likely a reference to a low production run related to 18k cases -perhaps all with 'deluxe' gold dials and the second one above has had its dial swapped out? Or just simply that the reference had 18k cases as the records above show.

An extract might throw some light upon the issue but would probably only show place of delivery but may state something like 'deluxe'.

If another one ever shows up (with either a gold dial or standard dial) it might set a pattern.

 

Yes absolutely, my mistake.

Both watches are Seamaster de Ville watches and have a similar lug profile to Swiss references 14743 and 14742. These two were available with gold and silvered dials, and even with dauphine hands. Reference 166.020 has a different appearance, especially the lugs.

Although the reference number is close to 166.020, this is a different case shape with quite different lugs from these two. 18K gold 166.020 SMDV are different.

 

Wow @PlainVanilla and @Peemacgee !
Thank you so much for your thoughts and insights here - it has me more and more intrigued! I’ve only just got ‘into’ vintage omegas in the last 2 months - my late father passed down his 1972 18k seamaster de ville, which last year I passed on to one’s of my sons, then this year felt guilty so bought a 14k GF for my other son - then felt guilty again as it wasn’t 18k ! - so bought this one for him ! - I’m a novice, and also curious, and fascinated that these two 025 watches isn’t easily traceable or known of in Omega enthusiast circles.
I’ve seen one other seamaster de ville (sold) that said it was a UK ‘made’case - I will see if I can confirm this might be a 3rd example of 025.
Where it seems to me to be at the moment is this then: that the ‘5’ is denoting UK, import of case, for ‘deluxe’ or ‘custom’ 18k assembly by OWC UK ?!
What do you think, and how can I track this down further in Omega history / archives?
Regards to all.
Neil - in the Uk

 

As mentioned in one of my posts above, there is another example from an auction house catalogue:
https://archiv.henrys.de/index.php?pc=list&SrchId=25640037
That one is purely swiss and apparently a deluxe model. Pics from the auction house site:


I am guessing that nowadays all originally 6-digit references from the sixties appear in the Omega extranet with a zero inserted between digits 3 and 4 and that this particular reference may have been produced in low numbers.

 

The case on this one appears to be identical to mine, and does not have to OWC or British import stamps, so confirming made in Switzerland/ not made or assemble in the UK.
To me, this seems more weight to some kind of low volume / custom production (all 3 dials being completely different yet from the same year.
I’m going to try to find more examples to try to get to the bottom of the ‘5’.

 

The difference among the dials is no surprise to me, that's very common with Seamaster de Villes.

 

this is really interesting.
All cases by the same case maker. (352 designation)

The OVDB also requires you to add the extra zero to search for reference numbers.

 

For clarity, a UK made case (if it utilised the Omega numbering system) would not have the 5 at the end of the reference., it would be inserted into the full Omega reference.
These cases are not assembled out of a Swiss movt and English case.
In the first two examples the cases are Swiss made cases imported by OWC (Omega in the UK)
There must have been some tax advantages to this method of import.

normally you can order an extract of the archives from Omega (for around €120) but this service is currently not available.

 

To my knowledge, all Swiss SMDV references in gold (except 145.005 which is a chronograph) were made by the same manufacturer (Serva S.A., La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland).

https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/swisspdm.php#pdm1