Community Stories

Time To Play You're Full Of Shit - Sellers Edition

Aroxx
Posts
2,984
Likes
17,733
I still consider myself a newbie so I'd like to play. First of all, listed as "mint condition". :whipped:

1. Obviously bad redial that isn't mentioned. Text looks drawn on with sharpie, crosshairs and Constellation text too thick.
2. Not a pie-pan as mentioned. I believe this is called a domed dial.
3. Wrong crown.
4. Hands are wrong. Minute hand is way too long. Seconds hand looks yellow gold and doesn't match rose gold furniture. Looks like meant to be lumed hands filled in with black paint.
5. I believe the bezel should have a chamfer that has been polished away. Lugs don't look terrible. Observatory may have been polished a bit or just wrist polishing.
6. Gold buckle on stainless watch doesn't match.
7. Valuation is way too high based on these issues.

Real pros would know the reference by heart and know what movement is supposed to be in there. No movement or case-back shots in the listing. A quick search for comps on OF shows good examples of 2852s with 501 or 505 movements. This is certainly not a "collector's piece". Full of shit indeed.

I always enjoy these thanks for the fun.
 
DrmexicoII
Posts
643
Likes
979
Caseback isn't right is it? That constellation writing looks very not 1950s.
 
gbesq
Posts
9,583
Likes
53,011
Since I'm not a newbie I'm not gonna play, but I love the thread title. 👍
 
MtV
Posts
3,347
Likes
13,085
DrmexicoII DrmexicoII
Caseback isn't right is it? That constellation writing looks very not 1950s.

Actually, the case back itself might be my favorite part of this watch 😁

I’ll shut up about the rest for now. But there’s more.
 
Ron_W
Posts
1,441
Likes
2,927
I think it is more a 1948 model case ?
 
theluckyluke
Posts
773
Likes
1,101
Everything looks wrong on this watch?
Dial is refurbished
Crown is wrong
Hands are all too long
Case is not 2852. I initially thought it looked like a 14724 for instance, but it’s not quite that either.
Not quite sure what’s going on with the case back though.
 
gbesq
Posts
9,583
Likes
53,011
noelekal noelekal
But wait!

There's more!
“Now much would you pay!?! Don’t answer yet!!!”

Yes, I have watched too much late night television in the U.S. 😲
 
nkhandekar
Posts
451
Likes
377
I do like that the seller is truth-adjacent by calling the dial 'pie-pan'. It is a dial after all.
 
MtV
Posts
3,347
Likes
13,085
theluckyluke theluckyluke
Case is not 2852. I initially thought it looked like a 14724 for instance, but it’s not quite that either.

Hint: The mid-case belongs to a 4-digit reference.
 
gatorcpa
Posts
13,167
Likes
18,086
nkhandekar nkhandekar
I do like that the seller is truth-adjacent by calling the dial 'pie-pan'. It is a dial after all.
Omega calls it “pie-pan” also.

upload_2024-4-1_18-33-29.png

gatorcpa
 
Jim_
Posts
15
Likes
21
A pop quiz -- I love it!

I'm squarely in the newbie camp, so I took a shot before cheating and scrolling. I saw the hands are clearly wrong (too long, mismatched gold), the Omega logo is far from centered, the crosshair lines look too thick, minute markers look too far outboard, and the crown is wrong. It's also not a pie pan in the sense the term is used on OF, at least. Lugs look good to me. I didn't catch the case issues at all, but I didn't research comparables before compiling this list.

Oh, and "Chronometer" is spelled wrong. ;-)
 
Jim_
Posts
15
Likes
21
Edit: I retract the logo not being centered...it looks different to me in the two pictures for some reason. Maybe just the angle or lighting.

Constellation script looks wrong too.
 
JwRosenthal
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,983
Oh, I thought by the title I was at a family holiday dinner- this is far more fun.
 
dmtowl
Posts
330
Likes
1,347
Jim_ Jim_
A pop quiz -- I love it!

I'm squarely in the newbie camp, so I took a shot before cheating and scrolling. I saw the hands are clearly wrong (too long, mismatched gold), the Omega logo is far from centered, the crosshair lines look too thick, minute markers look too far outboard, and the crown is wrong. It's also not a pie pan in the sense the term is used on OF, at least. Lugs look good to me. I didn't catch the case issues at all, but I didn't research comparables before compiling this list.

Oh, and "Chronometer" is spelled wrong. ;-)

The watch from the post is an absolute abhorrent horror show.

However!: "Chronometre" spelling is not inherently wrong. Tons of older omegas with that spelling, fully legit.
 
theluckyluke
Posts
773
Likes
1,101
MtV MtV
Hint: The mid-case belongs to a 4-digit reference.
Thanks @MtV I had this feeling too, but couldn’t pinpoint exactly a close match. Initially I though the lugs looked a bit like 2767 from the front, which I think are slightly more elongated than 2577, but clearly the side is completely different and the case here is really not beefy, so that’s nowhere near.

For my understanding, why do we have such different numbering for cases - for instance a 2754 or 2903 versus 14724 or 14703. I tend to identify all of these references as “early Geneve” watches (based on the dial). But obviously the case numbering follows a different logic.

Out of curiosity, is there any comprehensive thread with different references for cases with pictures or classification based on some attributes (beefy, type of lugs, bezel, holes etc…)
 
18 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

voere

Sometime I have way too much time to play around

voere Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
voere
voere
Posts
6
Views
1K