Testing my knowledge

CaliberKingPin · Feb 24, 2021

Love the wood chipper joke! Lol

I thought about it before scrolling down and actually figured it out. ARM’S! Lol

As for the further explanation in the rotor nicks thanks.

Ok well glad I’m getting better an looking at these old watches and starting to see a bit of what you guys see. Long ways to go still though.

So I have looked at the link that Nupomucno provided and it looks to me like the hands are the same shape as the one I’m looking at no? So they are the correct hands for this watch no?

If I’m incorrect about the hands then I admit I’m not seeing what you guys are seeing. Lol

The difference is the lum on the hands the colour on each hand is different. Is that the issue?

The seller is claiming that these are the original hands they have been relumed thou?

Would that make sense? And how big of a deal is this?

Thx

CaliberKingPin · Feb 24, 2021

Actually I have been looking more closely at the other Omega crosshair watch and the other watch doesn’t even have lum on the hands!

So that’s the issue?

My crosshair hands have lum and this watch is not suppose to have lum!

If I remember correctly from the Gone fishing thread one thing that was said is if your hands have lum the markers will as well and there is no lum on the markers!

So the issue is they have not been relumed it’s that they have been lumed and this watch should not have lum on the hands?

How did I do?

Man I should be going to detective school not watch repair school! Lol

Nepomuceño · Feb 25, 2021

CaliberKingPin
Actually I have been looking more closely at the other Omega crosshair watch and the other watch doesn’t even have lum on the hands!

So that’s the issue?

My crosshair hands have lum and this watch is not suppose to have lum!

If I remember correctly from the Gone fishing thread one thing that was said is if your hands have lum the markers will as well and there is no lum on the markers!

So the issue is they have not been relumed it’s that they have been lumed and this watch should not have lum on the hands?

How did I do?

Man I should be going to detective school not watch repair school! Lol

Look closer at your example. And look at this.

masteroftime · Feb 25, 2021

CaliberKingPin
So the issue is they have not been relumed it’s that they have been lumed and this watch should not have lum on the hands?

I'll help you out. The last watch is definitely the nicest of the bunch imho. The hands are wrong though----you'd have to decide if that bothers you as the correct hands with black insert aren't easy to find. They should have a thin onyx/black-paint insert, but they do not. If you look at the dial, it isn't lumed and isn't marked for lume, so it wouldn't have hands with lume. If you look at the shape of the hands, they aren't the same as the original one pictured. I'm not sure if they're Omega hands, but they definitely are not the original hands to the watch. They actually look like earlier hands like I have on my 2975 (precursor to this watch)

Also, you missed the crown. The one you posted has a service/replacement crown. The orignal crown for this model has been long discontinued and most of these that come up have the replacement crowns. See the orignal crown on the watch in the thread that @Nepomuceño linked.

Whether it is worthwhile also depends on price as well. Nice ones with crosshairs are hard to find.

Passover · Feb 25, 2021

masteroftime
The one you posted has a service/replacement crown

As far as I know this crown is correct for a 166.010

The reference came with both types of crowns, the later ones with one shown on the OPs third watch

masteroftime · Feb 25, 2021

Passover
As far as I know this crown is correct for a 166.010

The reference came with both types of crowns, the later ones with one shown on the OPs third watch

That might me true, but I'm not sure. I have a crown list from the late 70's or early 80's and it lists what I thought was the modern replacement, so I was always led to believe that it was a very early transition. I have a 166.010 from '69 and it has the other crown. OPs seems to be from around 67, so I would assume it should have the earlier crown. I'm not disputing that both were available, but now I'm genuinely curious...

Here is another example I pulled off the web:

Peemacgee · Feb 25, 2021

masteroftime
That might me true, but I'm not sure. I have a crown list from the late 70's or early 80's and it lists what I thought was the modern replacement, so I was always led to believe that it was a very early transition. I have a 166.010 from '69 and it has the other crown. OPs seems to be from around 67, so I would assume it should have the earlier crown. I'm not disputing that both were available, but now I'm genuinely curious...

Here is another example I pulled off the web:

I know sweet FA about Seamasters but the case and bezel have a very specific ‘bite’ out of them which leads me to believe that the fitted crown is too large.

@CaliberKingPin the hands on the latest watch you show are atrocious and should have been ringing very loud alarms bells.

CaliberKingPin · Feb 25, 2021

Ok I see what you guys are saying about the hands. Thanks for the help.

But now I’m confused about the crown?

The “bites” out of the case that Peemacgee mentions does seem strange that omega would do that to a case to accommodate the crown?

Anyone else have any insight?

Thx

Nepomuceño · Feb 25, 2021

CaliberKingPin
Ok I see what you guys are saying about the hands. Thanks for the help.

But now I’m confused about the crown?

The “bites” out of the case that Peemacgee mentions does seem strange that omega would do that to a case to accommodate the crown?

Anyone else have any insight?

Thx

Omega didn't do that, it is just natural wear and tear from the crown.

Peemacgee · Feb 25, 2021

Nepomuceño
Omega didn't do that, it is just natural wear and tear from the crown.

really?
The nibble out of the bezel might conceivably be but the curved shaping out of the case surely can’t be?
And if the crown has actually eaten away part of the bezel then it is surely the wrong crown - Omega definitely wouldn’t design a watch whereby the crown ate away the bezel (or the mid case. )

CaliberKingPin · Feb 25, 2021

That’s what I’m confused about? Omega would design a crown that rubbed up against a case? The only way a crown would rub a groove in a case is if they touched and I can’t see Omega designing a watch where these two parts touch?

Unless I’m misunderstand ?

CaliberKingPin · Feb 25, 2021

As you see in these photos the case has room for the crown? So is that normal?

Nepomuceño · Feb 25, 2021

Peemacgee
really?
The nibble out of the bezel might conceivably be but the curved shaping out of the case surely can’t be?
And if the crown has actually eaten away part of the bezel then it is surely the wrong crown - Omega definitely wouldn’t design a watch whereby the crown ate away the bezel (or the mid case. )

I was more referring to nibble rather than the curve shaped out in the bezel but I could also be wrong. My guess is that this isn't the original crown however OP.

TexOmega · Feb 25, 2021

CaliberKingPin
As you see in these photos the case has room for the crown? So is that normal?

No

Canuck · Feb 25, 2021

I see many views of exposed movements, and several views of the underside of case backs. But what I don’t see is any signs of case back gaskets! Could this contribute to “rotor rub?”

CaliberKingPin · Feb 26, 2021

Hey guys,

So I contacted the seller and he tells me that on the crosshair watch that it is the original crown? The seller said that the case was designed this way to accommodate this crown? Could this be true?

As you see on this case there is an indent for the crown but no notch on the top of the case? But maybe if two crowns were offered they did notch the cases on the top for the bigger crowns?

But maybe like Passover mentioned it is the correct crown?
Does anyone know for sure?

Nepomuceño · Feb 26, 2021

CaliberKingPin
Hey guys,

So I contacted the seller and he tells me that on the crosshair watch that it is the original crown? The seller said that the case was designed this way to accommodate this crown? Could this be true?

As you see on this case there is an indent for the crown but no notch on the top of the case? But maybe if two crowns were offered they did notch the cases on the top for the bigger crowns?

But maybe like Passover mentioned it is the correct crown?
Does anyone know for sure?

Are you looking to buy this watch? Or are you trying to learn what is correct for this reference number?

CaliberKingPin · Feb 27, 2021

I’m an considering buying it.

But if the case has had a grinder taken to it to make the crown fit that may be a deal breaker!

masteroftime · Feb 27, 2021

The "nibbles" for the crown aren't totally uncommon, but I've never seen them on a 166.010. The other case that you posted is a 166.028/168.022 and it is definitely supposed to have a recess for the crown, but I just checked my 166.010 and it doesn't have any sort of recess or cut in its bezel.

I do have a Ref 2975 which is like the "grandfather" for this watch and it has a recess in the bezel to accommodate the crown and it seem original from my research. This discrepancy in your case is interesting and there are three potential reasons:

1) the case has been machined/modified
2) parts could have been mixed between newer/older models
3) this case exemplifies some type of variation available at some point in time or specific area.

I personally still believe the crown is a generic/modern OEM replacement and the view from the bottom side showing the recess doesn't make me too comfortable because it looks like a large gap between the case and crown. The crowns should sit relatively flush to be more watertight imho. I'm not sure what the correct answer is from the three reasons above or if anybody can certainly tell you with 100% certainty about the original crown for this model. Another thing that I thought was odd is that the vast majority of the crosshair dials on this model were on older 562's. This being a 565 I thought was initially odd, but the movement and dial are in remarkably good shape and its possible that I just haven't seen enough of them.

Personally, I would stay away from this one unless it is really cheap. If you wait, you can get a normal one in good shape with a BOR bracelet for around $700USD....sometimes less if you're willing to make some concession or get lucky. I've seen some go as cheap as $550-500. The BOR bracelet itself is worth $200-250USD and I think it looks great on this model. I wouldn't be surprised if the one you listed climbs up to about $500USD.

If I were looking to buy, I'd only buy this one for the movement and dial, so that I would replace a damaged dial and butchered movement.

M'Bob · Feb 27, 2021

Testing my knowledge: how do you feel about summers that never end?

Testing my knowledge

CaliberKingPin

CaliberKingPin

Nepomuceño

masteroftime

Passover

masteroftime

Peemacgee

CaliberKingPin

Nepomuceño

Peemacgee

CaliberKingPin

CaliberKingPin

Nepomuceño

TexOmega

Canuck

CaliberKingPin

Nepomuceño

CaliberKingPin

masteroftime

M'Bob

Similar threads

Christmas self-gift: Rescuing a 1956 Seamaster

Looking at another Seamaster, testing my knowledge

A gap in my knowledge - buying Art Deco Hamilton

eBay Speedmaster Roundup - November 2020

Vintage, beyond my knowledge

IWC - testing my observations!