Forums Latest Members
  1. thearizonacowboy Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    12
    Likes
    2
    Hi all! I'm new here but a huge fan of Omega. I have a few Seamasters and really enjoy them.

    Any way, I recently acquired a vintage 1950's Seamaster with a 17 jewel movment. Here are some photos:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    As you can see, the movement is a bit rough. Along with the beat up hands... (how does this happen!?)

    I'm looking to replace the hands and learn a little bit about the watch. I'm fascinated by watches and especially by their history...

    If anyone has any info on the exact model #, year, etc I would greatly appreciate some info! I'm a beginner in the vintage watch realm and willing to learn!

    ETA:

    The watch was just barely acquired and I have no idea of the service record. I'm looking to get it serviced and over-hauled but would like the opinions of my fellow man before I alter it in any way.
     
    Edited Aug 24, 2015
  2. thearizonacowboy Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    12
    Likes
    2
    Here's a photo of the back (which, following the theme, is beat up:():

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Pvt-Public Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    2,319
    Likes
    3,108
    The movement is from the late 40's. The dial doesn't look right, all the lettering, the minute track,and the second hand. Case back looks like "OMEGA" was engraved by a shaky hand and a dremel tool, not to mention all the other writing that I don't think belongs there. Just hope you didn't pay much for this, as I think that it is not what it seems to be. But maybe some of the experts will come and prove me wrong.
     
    Edited Aug 24, 2015
    Giff2577 likes this.
  4. thearizonacowboy Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    12
    Likes
    2
    Thank you for the information so far... I paid $130.00 for this piece. Once again, thank you for taking the time to post your opinion and what you know.
     
  5. Canuck Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    13,478
    Likes
    38,025
    http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&&2uswk&Omega_30_10RA_PC

    Looks like this calibre was made from circa 1942 to 1949, according to the Ranfft's listing shown. But your serial number looks to me like circa 1946 or 1947. Others will likely have more exact figures. NOS original hands may be difficult to locate on a watch of this vintage. It may be possible to improve them a bit. As to having it serviced. It would need a detailed examination of exactly what might be required. Having just gone through a later version of this watch myself, I feel it has great potential to give you much pleasure. Of course, depending on the availability of what might be required to do the job.
     
  6. thearizonacowboy Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    12
    Likes
    2
    I almost forgot to add... it works but is running very fast. About 10 seconds fast per hour.

    Canuck: Thank you for the link. That is very informative.
    Would you concur with Pvt-Public regarding the case back?

    Thank you
     
  7. CanberraOmega Rabbitohs and Whisky Supporter Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    5,570
    Likes
    6,208
    Can we get a photo of the INSIDE of the case back? That will help with identification
     
    thearizonacowboy likes this.
  8. thearizonacowboy Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    12
    Likes
    2
    I'll snap a photo when I get home later (probably in a few hours).
     
  9. Canuck Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    13,478
    Likes
    38,025
    The lettering of the word Omega does look a bit shaky, I agree. But if this watch has been re-cased, it seems to me to have been well done. I just recased a later version of your watch (a calibre 355), which shares about 80 % of the components of your watch. To find a foreign case that is a "drop in" fit like yours seems to be, (in my view), is unlikely to happen. Unless it was actually an Omega case, of course. I took another look at the picture of your dial, and I didn't see what what pvtpublic saw. I don't purport to be an "expert", so don't go to the bank with what I say. You need to have your watch checked out by someone. Get an opinion and a quote, and go from there.
     
    thearizonacowboy likes this.
  10. Pvt-Public Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    2,319
    Likes
    3,108
    It may just be the angle but to me it looks like some of the minute "dots" were painted right over the tips of some of the markers.
     
  11. thearizonacowboy Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    12
    Likes
    2
    Here is another photo I took earlier:

    [​IMG]

    And here is a zoomed-in photo of the dial:

    [​IMG]
     
  12. gatorcpa ΩF InvestiGator Staff Member Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    12,206
    Likes
    15,723
    IMO, the case and movement are likely original and have always been together.

    The dial is an incorrect redial. The watch is probably from about 1948, right about the the time that the first Seamasters were being made.

    However, many of those first Seamasters did not have the model name in the dial:

    [​IMG]

    We would need to see the inside of the case back to give any additional information.

    Hope this helps,
    gatorcpa
     
  13. UncleBuck understands the decision making hierarchy Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    3,420
    Likes
    7,746
    Looks like a 30.10 RA PC or perhaps the 28.10, the movement alone is worth what you paid imho.
    The dial is ruined, please pardon my bluntness.

    Collectability wise, the dial is everything, so your value is limited, but as a parts or donor watch, you have value that I feel you've paid fairly for.

    The running fast could be indicative of a service or magnetism issue, it wouldn't bother me as this is an organ donor as far as I'm concerned.

    If you are disappointed, I'm sorry, but I view this watch fondly as it can live on in the hearts of several other watches.

    Please measure the movement diameter and if the 30.10, I would be interested.

    If you wish to restore, start searching for a good dial from this period, along with a lot of us.
     
    Giff2577 and Geo! like this.
  14. DON Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    1,728
    Likes
    1,072
    I would like to see the inside of the case back. Third image shows quite a large gap between main case lip and back with gasket showing.

    Could be signed, but not sure it belongs with the main case

    Bad redial and two different hands (hour pitched)

    DON
     
    thearizonacowboy likes this.
  15. redpcar Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    3,699
    Likes
    7,911
    Good call with the hands. Minute hand doesn't seem to set low enough either. Distance between the 2 looks off. Case back doesn't look to be Omega. Can we get pics of the inside of the back? That will tell the rest of the story.
     
    thearizonacowboy likes this.
  16. thearizonacowboy Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    12
    Likes
    2
    There are two very small sequences of characters:

    D-1235-H
    5C77O(or 0)X

    Photos:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  17. thearizonacowboy Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    12
    Likes
    2
    I'll grab my calipers and measure the movement diameter in a little bit. Thanks for everyone's help so far!
     
  18. CanberraOmega Rabbitohs and Whisky Supporter Aug 24, 2015

    Posts
    5,570
    Likes
    6,208
    well that confirms it. That is NOT a genuine Omega case.
     
  19. thearizonacowboy Aug 25, 2015

    Posts
    12
    Likes
    2
    Ah I see... That's unfortunate.

    Calipers are showing a diameter of about 30.1 - 30.2 MM
     
    Edited Aug 25, 2015
  20. apollo XI Aug 25, 2015

    Posts
    132
    Likes
    74
    I'm agree.

    In my humble opinion:
    - the dial was reprinted badly;
    - case I have some doubts that it's omega, partly because the writing on the back, into the coffers omega are more pronounced and deeper (also after polishing);
    - about the hands, I think that is correct only the hour;
    - the movement should be a 28.10, the bumper springs of the hammer are discovered, unlike the 30.10 and following, where they are covered.
    The movement, I think, is the only original part.

    However, if it works, you can use the movement as spare parts, that are becoming harder to find.


    Giuseppe.