strangeness : 145.022-69st with applied logo ?!

[Azveld]

I am offered a really beautiful 145.022-69st with the particularity of having a dial with an applied logo. This is the first time I have come across this situation.
the person tells me that it belonged to the father of a friend. a few years after his death, his daughter proposed to him. it would have remained 30 years in a drawer and would not have had its very first revision until last November, just after the purchase.

I know that omega was not as rigorous as it is now, but there is quite a gap between the dials of the 68st and the production of this 69st.

what do you think about that ?

 

[masteroftime]

Cool watch! Can you share the first few digits of the SN? Does it seem to land early in the 145.022-69 production?

 

[Azveld]

I don’t have the SN, juste the extract from the archives.
We can't say it's an early 69st

 

[Dan S]

The most likely answer is that somehow the watch picked up a different dial at some point. Either a 145.022-68 dial, or a 321 dial that was modified to fit.

 

[Davidt]

I know the case looks amazing.

Are these not your pictures? As @masteroftime says, it would be good to get the first few digits of the serial no to confirm whether it’s in 68 or 69’ range.

 

[Azveld]

Dan S

The most likely answer is that somehow the watch picked up a different dial at some point. Either a 145.022-68 dial, or a 321 dial that was modified to fit.

I thought the same thing when I saw it.

on one side of the scale there is absolutely impeccable condition of the screws and the absence of service markings. the general condition of the watch is almost perfect. it doesn't look like a revamped watch.
on the other side of the scale, what would an isolated 68st dial have been lying around in the middle of the 69st? when they ran out of parts, Omega watchmakers would dig into the stock of parts reserved for service, of course, but not just one part. they were taking a series. there should have been other similar examples.

 

[Davidt]

Scrap that. A date of Dec 70 is clearly a 69

 

[Azveld]

My 69 is earlier than it

 

[TrboDieselPwrd]

I think the serial could clear up a few things. The bezel, for example, would be appropriate to a later serial -69 since it’s a DNN.

Very pretty watch!

 

[stonestone]

Gorgeous watch, even with the "wrong" dial.

 

[joeshoup]

stonestone

Gorgeous watch, even with the "wrong" dial.

Totally - whatever it is, it looks amazing! Those dial plots!

 

[ortope]

Dan S

The most likely answer is that somehow the watch picked up a different dial at some point. Either a 145.022-68 dial, or a 321 dial that was modified to fit.

I also think, that this is was happened with the watch.
Probably they used a 145.022-68 dial.

 

[Seaborg]

Correct or not, I like it.
This could be a super nice daily-beater !

 

[joe band]

tell you what... i have a correct '69 dial, i'll swap you for it to make yours correct. whuddah ya think?

 

[mancio]

Seaborg

Correct or not, I like it.
This could be a super nice daily-beater !

With that case I doubt it will ever be a "Beater"😲

 

[Azveld]

Seaborg

Correct or not, I like it.
This could be a super nice daily-beater !

given the asking price ($8k), I'm not sure it's the best candidate

if @Spacefruit look this topic, I admit that his opinion would certainly be instructive 😉

 

[Spacefruit]

I cannot give a useful opinion on this watch based on these low res photos. I can say what I would want to investigate with better photos.

I don't mind low res if it's cheap, but this watch is high enough to suggest the seller is not a naive private seller. At this price, we cannot gamble. We have to go deep.

The watch has a replaced dial. Who by, doesn't matter, it only matters that no confirmed example of this execution from the factory is known.

So it is unoriginal, and been "attended to", and so what else is there to discover?

In my experience, if someone has changed the dial, we have to forensically examine the rest of the watch for work done. I dont trust anything apart from my eyes from here on.

The dial looks nice under this resolution, but it is impossible to see if the dial is clean, or if the plots have been adjusted. At this price, we need to see the dial surface, and the plots. Like this: (NOT THE OP WATCH!)



In the above photo, we can see the character of the dial surface, and we can close in on the plots, as well as the definition of the bezel font.


Back to the OP watch: The bezel. I can't see if the bezel is real or not from these photos. I normally would not be alerted to this, but the dial swap makes me nervous, and I want to make 100% sure it is genuine, and for that I need in focus, higher resolution photos.

This:




Tells me nothing.

And why is the mid-case so well-defined, while the case back has opening marks?

A last word on the dial - we need to make sure what the feet look like - it could be a butchered 321 dial, which would annoy me.

Finally, if you think this is a bit over the top, this watch is being offered at a price that is too high if any of the problems we might uncover are there, and so in depth analysis is justified. If it were $4,000 I would jump on it and problems absorbed.

 

[pascs]

My 220 bezel '69 was supplied on 25th September 1970, and it would seem very unlikely to have a watch which was supplied to Switzerland at a later date than mine but with an applied logo dial.

I'd also want to know if the dial is from an '68 861, or a modified 321 dial - this could of course have happened very early in its life, but it would affect the value to a collector not to have the correct '69 dial.

I'd also be super happy to wear the watch as it looks great, but just need to be certain what it actually is.

 

[Azveld]

thanks you @Spacefruit

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone seeing a 68/861 dial in circulation. it is a chimera.

I asked for high resolution macro photos. I agree that we should not miss when we are in such a budget.

can you see the feet of the dial just by opening the watch or do you have to take everything apart?

 

[Spacefruit]

You have to view the dial feet.

So the dial has to come off - so dismantled from the movement.