As in, is this dial OK? The case ref is 2635, this one is gold-capped, crown is wrong, movement is a cal 351, date is 1950-52.

The case may have been polished in the past, but certainly not recently!



This is the seller's photograph. Many thanks for your advice, as always.

John

 

Hmmmm
I don't like the omega logo. Would like to see closer photos of the text. It looks smudged?

 

John - I admire your humility in seeking the advice and consent of others but I have to note that you are one of the top Omega detectives around. you really know your stuff: trust your gut.

i was sort of hoping you could evaluate my first ever omega purchase. I can't believe I've bought so many watches over the years managing somehow to avoid omega.

canberra - are you bothered by the "M"?

 

Rich, you flatter me - I wish that was true! People like Dennis, Mike and so on have forgotten more about Omegas than I will ever know

 

In automatic, yeah.

 

+1 it doesn't look bad to me either.

 

The dial is probably okay. Crazing of the clear coat might be causing the smudged look, especially with mediocre pictures. the crown should be a clover or hat style.

 

Right, the consensus of opinion is with me

Offer made, offer accepted, the trigger is pulled (as they say). More details to follow . . . (I always did fancy a black dial )

 

Thanks for all of your input, you tipped the balance in favour of a “yes”. This could prove to be a bit of an impulse purchase, and one which I could well live to regret. But there you are, the watch is now on its way to me, and the die is cast . . . it did look sort of interesting, and I do have a 14-day return option, so the risk is not too great.

When I say interesting, I mean that it is “my” period, the 1950s, a bit different to what I already have, and ticks a few boxes for me (like open-ended lugs, which I love). The pictures which follow are the seller’s, but I am sure that he won’t mind me using them now that I have bought the piece. According to the Omega database a 2635 case ref should be steel, but the DB is often out in this respect.

http://www.omegawatches.com/spirit/history/vintage-omegas/vintage-watches-database?ref=14972

This is an early version with the cal 351 movement – the later 354 versions should be chronometers, which this one plainly is not. The DB identifies it as a Seamaster, but there is no Seamaster on the dial. Neither is there on the DB example! Can anyone shed light? It is a very small watch at 32.5mm diameter, but that’s fine with me because I have very small wrists.

One of the things that appealed to me about this case is the lugs, which are very like the Constellation ones – and with the open ends! Another plus for me is the bi-metal construction, where only the bezel and the lugs are gold, and the case sides are steel. I really like this look. It’s not pretending to be a gold watch, it is gold and steel and very nice too.



The crown is rubbish, of course, but the hands look to be gold, which is a plus, and I like the stylised figures at the quarter positions which are just a bit different to the usual very plain ones. All of the gold is very tarnished which is a bit odd – as if the watch has been in a drawer for years. But at least it has not been buffed to death.

It’s a screw-in back, and some gorilla has managed to scar it up by opening it with a crowbar from the look of things. That’s a pity, but it is so often the case.



Once inside, the cal 351 looks amazingly good, with all the plating in very nice condition. There was no mention of any service, but it does apparently run. We shall see.



So within the next day or two there will be a new Omega at Smith Towers to add to the collection. I am going to need a bit of help with this one from you chaps – I’m going to have to source a crown, an o-ring, maybe a crystal, and I won’t know where to start. When the watch turns up, expect another update (well, if it’s really crap, I expect I shall keep quiet about it and pretend it never happened ).
John

 

It does not seem to need an O-ring... IMO it still has the original lead gasket - at least it seems so in the pics.

I would try to preserve the tarnish of the gold... I have done so on all of my tarnished pieces - it takes decades to "build up" this kind of patina and it is destroyed within seconds with a polishing cloth. This kind of patina is the proof that the watch has not been polished within the last 15-20 years I guess. This rule of thumbs only counts for 14K and 18K of course and is quite different with 9K which tarnishes within months, it is the very low gold content on these.
Just my thoughts.

 

Thanks for all of that. I hadn't thought about the possibility of a lead seal - I came across one on a JLC a while back. Did Omega use lead before they adopted O-rings? As for the tarnish, I am not sure at this point. If I want to use the watch and wear it often, I think that I would want to polish it, because the tarnish would wear off in patches anyway. I know this is not the right attitude for a true collector
But I do use all my Hasselblad lenses too, even the rarest and most valuable, and my vintage guitars - even my little Martin from 1889 gets played a lot.

 

That looks like the Omega hard plastic flat seal, so you need a flat nitrile seal to replace it, not an o-ring.

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks for clarifying that, Gator. I was just quoting from the Omega DB info, which seemed to imply that the 351 was sometimes chronometer and that the 354 always was, in this particular case ref. I have been so busy today (helping to take down a hedge in front of my cottage) that this is the first chance I have had to take a break and read my mail. But there is an interesting package, unopened so far, sitting on my desk . . .