So I have my eyes on this guy: http://www.ebay.com/itm/OMEGA-VINTA...052877643?pt=Wristwatches&hash=item19db446f4bPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network Why? Well, I'm specifically after a watch from 1985 for personal reasons, and as much as I'd LOVE an original Speedymoon (1985 Limted Moonphase,) it's just a bit out of my budget. So, I came across this, but was skeptical it was from the correct vintage. My research is leading me to believe it's from 1992, but I'd love some more expert advice as I'm new to this. I've deducted the reference # to be ST 345.0808 Serial Number: 48270524 I've seen the 48****** fall in different places on different charts. Some date it to '85, while others date it to '92. I have read that Omega didn't start engraving numbers into the case until 1991, but they started with serial number 53000000. This one has it on the case. More reason to believe it's from 1992, despite the number difference. Cal. 863: Looks to be correct. Looks like this was the last year that it was offered in the Rose Gold. They switched to yellow "after 1992," and in 1996 to Cal. 1863 all together. Case Back: Case back contains "Apollo XI" engraved upon it. Since its introduction in 1980, it was a numbered, but not limited edition. In 1985, it became an option to have a non-numbered version without the "Apollo XI." So, is the back original to the watch or not? The seller says it is due to the red marking, and that the watch has never been opened. This I know nothing about, but it seems to be legitimate. Bracelet: There are no pictures showing the reference, although seller claims Ref. 1479. This visually appears to be correct. Question is, was it original? The charts say the watch came with ST 1498/840. Looks to me that this current bracelet was not the original, though the 1498 seems too modern for this watch? Especially in 1980. I am at a loss here, sometimes these charts can be a bit confusing. Any input would be greatly helpful. So what do you guys think. Does this watch seem legitimate? Certainly seems to me that there is some pretty convincing evidence that the watch is from 1992 as opposed to 1985. Thoughts? And would you buy it? Say if the price was a few hundred dollars cheaper? Seems to be in pretty great overall condition, despite some scuffs on the crystal. It'll be a daily wearer though, so that's alright. The downside, it'll need an immediate servicing.
If it is 48 then it is from the 1990's. If it was from 1985 it should have the 1171 ref model bracelet. The 1479 bracelets were used in the early 90's when the 1450 transitioned out of use and prior to that the 1447 which was produced for around a year. The first 3592.50 had engravings such as AXX on the blank part of the caseback you see there. That is all but it looks legitimate and you may draw your own conclusion.
The dial looks sort of odd around the 6 o'clock and the number on the case looks like it has 'slipped' off the case. Also that price seems expensive .....but I'm no expert
How about this 3590.50 from 1985? http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-OME...206128932?pt=Wristwatches&hash=item3f25251d24Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network
You're right, that serial number did seem a little odd to me. Thanks for passing that along though. Missed that one someone. Definitely thing I'm going to hold off on the original. Too much hesitation on authenticity to really go for it comfortably.
