US Army Omega watch

M

Posts

2

Likes

0

Muxtwo

·May 23, 2021

I'm looking to pick up this watch but want to make sure it is real. Anyone have any idea?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/174768215856?hash=item28b0ff5730:g:Eb4AAOSwHd5gnc5C

Thanks for any help anyone can provide.

 

This website may earn commission from Ebay sales.

Posts

24,336

Likes

54,163

Dan S

·May 23, 2021

I think the military watch should have a lumed dial and hands. The dial is also in very poor condition.

If you want to get comments, you should post photos, not links.

 

Posts

18,205

Likes

27,542

Foo2rama

·May 23, 2021·Nowhere near as grumpy as he used to be...

I too can put US ARMY on the back of a tired 30T2


:edit:

ignore me

Edited: May 24, 2021

 

Posts

24,336

Likes

54,163

Dan S

·May 23, 2021

The case-back actually looks like it could be legit. I just don't think it has the original dial and hands. But I'd like to hear from the experts.

 

Posts

1,821

Likes

7,258

CdnWatchDoc

·May 23, 2021

Very damaged dial, incorrect hands (all mil-spec hands from that era are lumed, usually syringe), movement could be from that era. Just as @Foo2rama states, anyone could inscribe US ARMY; it looks too deep compared to those I have seen. I would avoid; lots of other better examples exist.

 

M

Posts

2

Likes

0

Muxtwo

·May 23, 2021

Thanks everyone for your comments. I appreciate your help.

 

Posts

5,598

Likes

9,424

watchyouwant

·May 24, 2021

Failed mix no match.....wrong : dial , hands, engraving recent. mvmt tired. The 3 digit number in the case back should match the lug number.....

 

Posts

3,554

Likes

7,591

mac_omega

·May 24, 2021

Dan S

The case-back actually looks like it could be legit. I just don't think it has the original dial and hands. But I'd like to hear from the experts.

I concur

IMO the case back is totally correct and the "U.S.Army" punch has the proper font and size - the problems are the wrong dial and hands

 

Posts

768

Likes

1,328

size11s

·May 24, 2021

I also think the engraving is too deep/prominent on the case back, looks faked to me. A good one looks like this, on the 2179 case anyway.

 

Posts

5,598

Likes

9,424

watchyouwant

·May 24, 2021

size11s

I also think the engraving is too deep/prominent on the case back, looks faked to me. A good one looks like this, on the 2179 case anyway.

Correct. My guess: started life as a civil surplus watch 1945/46. Was engraved much later with this wrong short spaced font. Lousy dial and hands added. Value: case and movement.

 

Posts

17,974

Likes

37,563

JimInOz

·May 24, 2021·Melbourne Australia

Just so we have a record after the link expires.

 

Posts

3,554

Likes

7,591

mac_omega

·May 24, 2021

size11s

I also think the engraving is too deep/prominent on the case back, looks faked to me. A good one looks like this, on the 2179 case anyway.

You are correct for the ref. 2179 - it looks like this - but it is different on ref 2384

 

Posts

3,554

Likes

7,591

mac_omega

·May 24, 2021

watchyouwant

Correct. My guess: started life as a civil surplus watch 1945/46. Was engraved much later with this wrong short spaced font. Lousy dial and hands added. Value: case and movement.

Achim,

sorry to contradict. The "engraving" - I rather call it "punch" as it is applied with punch, not engraved is different on the 2 U.S.Army watches.
The punch on 2179 is wider-spaced and shallow wheras the punch on 2384 is narrow-spaced and much deeper.
The font and size on the OP´s watch is perfectly fine and correct for ref 2384.
You have my book - have a look you will find an enlarged detail photo there for comparison.

 

Posts

3,554

Likes

7,591

mac_omega

·May 24, 2021

Here a detail of the punched inscription on my personal specimen of ref 2384

It is on an unaltered (not polished) example . Compare the style of the upper part of the "S" (very close) and the more prominent and deeper "R" and narrow and somewhat unsymmetric "M". Flat top "A"
Look at the "Y" with the very short lower part. The "R" has a rapidly sloping upper right part (hanging shoulder)
- it is quite the same on the OP´s watch.

While the inscription on ref 2179 is so shallow it is often worn off.

The inscription on 2384 is much deeper - so it withstands much better over the decades and is rarely worn off.

for direct comparison:

Edited: May 24, 2021

 

Posts

768

Likes

1,328

size11s

·May 24, 2021

Cool. I stand corrected. Thank you for posting the images.

 

Posts

17,974

Likes

37,563

JimInOz

·May 24, 2021·Melbourne Australia

I have noted three variants of stamps on these models.

They are:

(A) U.S.ARMY
(B) U . S . ARMY
(C) U _ S _ ARMY (not quite underscore, but lower than a dash - mark).

The spacing (or lack thereof) on (A) indicates standard letters with narrow punctuation dies.
On (B) it seems that all letter and punctuation dies were of equal width and spaced widely.
On (C) the dash marks have been used in place of the period "dots" seen on (A) and (B) but spacing is similar to (B).

I haven't yet been able to tie each format to specific references or serial groups, it's an ongoing Odyssey.

 

Posts

13,331

Likes

18,465

gatorcpa

·May 24, 2021·ΩF InvestiGator

@mac_omega is correct. IMO case and movement go together. Dial and hands do not.

There are significant differences in the cases between Ref. 2179 and 2384, but you’d need to put them next to each other to see them.

Also, serial numbers on the 2384’s are generally earlier than the 2179’s that were marked “US Army”. This watch is consistent with the pattern.

Please see the thread for more information, including pictures of both references:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/what-do-you-think-of-this-one-for-a-beginner-collector.7596/

This is just another instance where the Omega Vintage Database has incomplete or misleading information.

Dials in good condition for these watches are almost impossible to find due to the large amount of radium used for this model reacting with the dial lacquer.
gatorcpa

 

Posts

5,636

Likes

5,811

SkunkPrince

·May 24, 2021

I'd be really interested to see what a factory restoration would look like for this one but probably a waste of money.

 

Posts

768

Likes

1,328

size11s

·May 26, 2021

As this thread has quite a bit of really good U.S. ARMY Omega in it (and as my memory is poor) could someone please remind me which of the 2179/? are commonly the marked case backs? I used to have a very nice 2179/5 with an unmarked case back, gratuitous pic attached.
Thanks
Mark

 

Posts

3,554

Likes

7,591

mac_omega

·May 26, 2021

Hi Mark,

observations are: 2179-3 and 2179-5 are mostly the watches with marked casebacks.

So your´s would be fine.

I would order an extract from Omega - maybe it will turn out that your watch was military and lost the shallow inscription which easily wore off on ref 2179