Forums Latest Members
  1. Pirendeus May 10, 2012

    Posts
    3
    Likes
    0
    Hi,


    I recently purchased a Seamaster on Ebay, and I'm having problems identifying it (perhaps because of my ignorance of watches. The auction's link is http://www.ebay.com/itm/30069765379...X:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649#ht_9684wt_1396Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network and it has multiple pictures. The watch is basically all silver or gray, if the pictures look golden, its just the background. The edge of the back case at the junction with the band says "734"; all other markings are shown in the pictures. From the little I bit of info i've seen regarding Omega, an authentic stem should have the omega logo, but my watch does not. Is this an indicatation that it's been refurbished with non-omega parts? Is there any database that I can use to identify the watch or find a manual? Also, some vintage omega manuals i've seen show that the date is changed by pulling the stem to a third position, but when I pull the stem, it seems to have a second position, and then if pulled again extends further but slips back to the second position as if on a spring and the date doesnt change. Am I doing something wrong, or is this potentially broken?
    Thanks for any information you can provide.


    Jonathan
     
  2. dsio Ash @ ΩF Staff Member May 11, 2012

    Posts
    26,751
    Likes
    32,466
    Hmm these are not particularly popular models being quartz. Being Quartz it shouldn't need 3 positions, only two (because it has no winding position) but I'm just guessing.
     
  3. Pirendeus May 11, 2012

    Posts
    3
    Likes
    0
    Theretically, the first position is not-extended, the second position is to set time/day, and the third position would be to set the date? Like I said, I'm totally ignorant, so please correct me if i'm wrong.
     
  4. Trev The Architect Staff Member May 11, 2012

    Posts
    1,890
    Likes
    1,752
    The white-balance on those photos is waaay off. Here's a (mostly) corrected version:

    Before:
    DSCF0015-5.jpg


    After:
    DSCF0015-5_DxO.jpg
     
  5. Pirendeus May 11, 2012

    Posts
    3
    Likes
    0
    That's a much better picture. Thank you, Trev. The watch is almost perfect to me, I just hope to find some more information about it.
     
  6. Trev The Architect Staff Member May 11, 2012

    Posts
    1,890
    Likes
    1,752
    No problem, Jonathan. Welcome to ΩF :)