Thanks to you guys' help, I've bought my first Omega. . .

[jb01]

. . . and my second. 😎

I've never had a nice watch, at least no nicer than a Seiko quartz chrono, but I wanted one for my upcoming wedding. I've always thought old Omegas looked very classy and I found this forum and its wealth of knowledge in my quest to educate myself a bit. Thanks to that knowledge I think I bought myself a beautiful clunker. And a very pretty, possibly collector worthy one, too.

I started my search completely @ss backward, from a collector's standpoint. I decided what I wanted my watch to look like.

What I started looking for:
1) stainless case - i don't want to worry about scratching gold plate
2) simple face markers - no arabic numbers - preferrably gold
3) white, cream, tan, ivory or champagne face to look nice with brown band to match brown shoes and belt
4) no day or date
5) automatic - completely arbitrary decision, other than nice watches should be automatic. Shrug.

Here's what I came up with - my beautiful (to me!) clunker!




It's a franken. Knew it when I bought it. Movement doesn't match case. Crown doesn't match either the movement or case. Never seen hands like that on a Seamaster. And the movement looks like it was attacked by an over-caffeinated toddler. Oh, AND I overpaid. But I love it and the future wife loves it and it will look great in the wedding pictures. Keeps pretty good time, too, despite the looks of the movement - about +10 seconds a day measured during real life wear.

Thanks to the forum, I knew what I was getting into, but also knew that I wanted something that was kinda nice, as well. So, I thought, "what about one that will look nice with a black strap for black outfits, that's maybe a little more correct and maybe even collectible."

Hence:

Curious of your thoughts and opinions about my clunker, but moreso about the correctness and finish of the whitefaced one. Seems original to me, unfettered with and unpolished with just a touch of patina on the face. But I only know what I've learned here in the last few weeks of lurking.

Thanks again and thanks for having me!

 

[nicks]

Points your way for “over-caffeinated toddler”. 😀

I’m not expert on the intricacies of correctness, but the second one looks great. I detect some colour differences in the movement plates and bridges, perhaps evidence of some replacements along the way.

 

[johnireland]

First, congrats on the wedding. The watch you wear to it will be part of your history together. This November my wife and I will celebrate our 50th. The key is being best friends. Now assuming that both your watches are original and correct, I do prefer the second one just on looks...more to my taste, that's all. My big take away is that you are having fun and making informed decisions along the way. And you may decide that buying watch is a great way to celebrate key anniversaries along the way. That allows you time to make each watch a special reflection of who you both are at that time. I don't have a lot of watches, but the one's I do, I really enjoy giving them both a lot of wrist time. I wouldn't call the first one a clunker as much as a watch well lived. Have a good happy life.

 

[Syrte]

Welcome to the forum, I don’t know enough about Omega to ssy anything about correctness but I agree what’s important is the enjoyment you’re getting out of this— and of course the happy occasion which prompted the purchase.
With that said, the second one looks with its pure and pristine look seems much more of a wedding day watch to me, and it does match all of your criteria.
Best wishes in any event

 

[OneTwo]

Congrats on the wedding! Funny enough I'm getting married next month and the watch I found/wanted for my wedding is a similar reference to the first one you posted. I am not an expert on these but from what I've learned from others on OF there are a couple things I can point out. Here's a couple photos of mine for reference:






For the first one you posted:
- You note the movement doesn't match case. I suspect it's not the movement but the case back that you have doesn't match the case/movement and was swapped from another watch as it's stamped 166.002. Since your watch has no date window similar to my watch, the reference number from what I've seen / found I believe is to be a 165.002. The proportions of the case front look quite similar to my 165.022. I also have a cal.552 movement in my Seamaster. (I'm waiting for an Extract From the Archives to verify everything is as it left the Omega workshop)
- You note that you haven't seen hands like that on a Seamaster. The proportions of the hands are similar to my watch and other Seamaster 165.022 / 166.002 references that I have seen. What might look different is that there is no slot for lume on the hands of your watch but as the dial is noted noted with a "T" adjacent to the "SWISS MADE" they could be original to the watch.
- Your comment about the crown not being original to the case. From what I've been told on OF I tend to agree with you that the crown is not original to this reference but that being said I have seen many a 165.002/166.002 with the type of crown yours has. Funny enough the crown on the second watch is similar to the one that is on mine and I have been told that those are the correct crown styles for the 165.002 reference.

I can't speak to the dial authenticity but the gold indices and hands are a really nice combo with the patinaed dial.

For the second one all I can say is that I dig the Alpha style hands with the lume channel but since the dial does not have a "T" next to "SWISS MADE" it makes me question if they left the factory together but others may know better. Then again there is this other 147064 SC-61 that looks almost identical to yours also with lumed alpha hands and "swiss made" only so I could definitely be mistaken.

As I said, not an expert here, but as a fellow Seamaster owner of a similar reference I thought I'd provide some thoughts. @JwRosenthal @ConElPueblo and @kingsrider 's comments on OF have been really helpful regarding my 165.002. From what I've seen they've got a wealth of knowledge on these so I'll defer to their more experienced eyes.

 

[jb01]

Thanks, everybody, for the well wishes!

To a couple of the points:

It may be that my franken has had just the case back swapped. It, as was noted, is the back for a similar age (1966ish) date watch. I appreciate the listing provided - good to see another one with gold batons in a stainless case. Though that one is older than “Frank.” Yes, he has a name.

I also like seeing the baton hands on another seamaster, though I’ve only seen gold un-lumed ones on a “Golden Mercury.”

The second watch is probably from 1960 (Cal591) so it’s lit with radium, not tritium, so no T’s next to Swiss Made. Also why the lume has aged to that dark yellow/brown. I have concern that the lume in the hands is quite green. I know that hands age differently, and that hands often were manufactured and lumed in different places and/or times than the faces, but it bugs me that they may be more modern service hands. Thoughts?

I still really like them both!

 

[jb01]

Anybody have learned insight on whiteface/number 2? Really curious of your opinions.

 

[unxsr]

Congrats on your wedding and your new watches!

 

[stormysky10]

For the second one, it looks like there's a nick on the crystal at 2. In the angled photo it's easier to spot:



Given the clarity of the rest of the crystal, perhaps this was an area that could not be polished out?

The case back is showing some rotor rub, so it'd be good to understand if the movement was serviced to correct that issue.

Like you, I would be concerned about the lume on the hands not matching that of the dial. To me this suggests they were aged under different conditions (i.e. not together).

 

[jb01]

stormysky10

For the second one, it looks like there's a nick on the crystal at 2. In the angled photo it's easier to spot:



Given the clarity of the rest of the crystal, perhaps this was an area that could not be polished out?

Like you, I would be concerned about the lume on the hands not matching that of the dial. To me this suggests they were aged under different conditions (i.e. not together).

Surprisingly enough, the spots on the crystal were just some surface gunk that came off easily with a fingernail. I do have some question, still, about the different colors of the lume, and nobody has dropped any knowledge that would convince me one way or the other. I'm not particularly concerned about it, as I've just been loving wearing it. Still paranoid about it getting bumps, bruises and scratches, though. 😀

 

[SkunkPrince]

The green of the lume suggests to me that it was replaced at some point. Many watchmakers can mix Super Luminova to match the color of the dial lume.

I had a watchmaker whom I'll never work with again slap that green lume into replacement hands on a trench watch of mine, totally not matching the Super-Luminova of the dial. His replacement is a craftsman who matched it very well and you can hardly tell the tiny difference.