Assuming the serial number in the paperwork is accurate, the watch was assembled in 1968/9 so a purchase date of 1970 seems reasonable. Fairly common Seamaster model with a diamond dial that has been refinished. Aftermarket bracelet. Movement is likely a cal. 550/2. Paperwork suggests the case is 14k gold, and the bracelet may likewise be solid gold so there some value there.
Thank you for all of your detective work. But What makes you say the dial was refinished???
I did notice that the 3 and 9 indices are a little askew. What else makes you think the dial was touched? I just got it back from a service, so I’d really like to hear your input.
The ‘Automatic’ and ‘Seamaster De Ville’ printing is a bit sloppy. Also, there appears to be no ‘Swiss Made’ below the 6 o’clock marker.
Any thoughts about this SMDV? The dealer lists this as a ST 166.0161. But I can't seem to find much more info on it. The included papers suggest that it was originally bought in 1980, and the Omega site lists the ST 166.0161 (https://www.omegawatches.com/en-us/watch-omega-de-ville-omega-st-166-0161) as released in 1973. The strap is obviously new.
I'll take a better few pictures tonight, but this is my current project. it's not FULLY on par with some other watches I've worked on, I need to get the regulation down, but it's (as far as I know) original. I dont think it's a redial, but I'll leave it to you all to decide. I absolutely love this watch, its also one of the ones I'll never let go. More pictures to follow.
Based upon your picture... yeah it's a redial. The printing of 'Automatic, Seamaster, De Ville' is way off. Lettering too thick, asymmetrical, should probably be gilt, silver colored and reflect light instead of being white. See for yourself if the 'T's in Automatic and the 'a's in Seamaster are exactly the same, if not you've got a redial. What's up with the stem/crown on this thing? This SMDV is certainly unique.
It could indeed have been re-dialed many years ago. The watch is likely 50+_ years old and finishes were/are perishable if exposed to moisture etc. The stem/crown comment was likely because the stem/tube and crown are further from the side of the case than I believe any of us have seen on a fully factory watch. It may indeed be an authentic watch it just would mean some watchmaker sometime in it's history put a tube of an improper length or type on the watch, a condition that a competent watchmaker with a parts account or access to vintage parts could easily remedy. Better photos would certainly be helpful to those who know far more than i for sure. One question I have is the alignment of the 3 o'clock index. It may be just the picture but to my eye it seems slightly slanted (hence the need for more shots).
My gut feeling was redial but based on those new photos, it’s original.
It could indeed have been re-dialed many years ago. The watch is likely 50+_ years old and finishes were/are perishable if exposed to moisture etc. The stem/crown comment was likely because the stem/tube and crown are further from the side of the case than I believe any of us have seen on a fully factory watch. It may indeed be an authentic watch it just would mean some watchmaker sometime in it's history put a tube of an improper length or type on the watch, a condition that a competent watchmaker with a parts account or access to vintage parts could easily remedy. Better photos would certainly be helpful to those who know far more than i for sure. One question I have is the alignment of the 3 o'clock index. It may be just the picture but to my eye it seems slightly slanted (hence the need for more shots).
