Vintage 1956? Seamaster - Need Help Identifying. I'm New at This!

[jwr]

thank you. the reference# is 14363-1 SC rather than the 14363-3 SC above. Not sure if it makes a difference. I too came up with the result you did but again noticed that it was not the same reference #. I appreciate your help.

 

[jwr]

thanks to all for your input. really do appreciate it. of course the real value is sentimental. I'll continue to try and track this down and will let all know if I find anything definitive. thanks again. cheers.

 

[jwr]

FWIW - I reached out to the watchmaker that serviced the watch. He doubts it's a redial. Said the movement was in excellent condition for the age of the watch and there was no water damage. We purposely did not polish the case or touch the dial. We did ask for him to take the scratches out of the crystal which he did. A thought that came to my mind is why would someone redial the watch but leave the crystal untouched? Doesn't make sense to me. Anyways - the journey continues. Next stop is to probably reach out to Omega.

 

[padders]

J jwr

FWIW - I reached out to the watchmaker that serviced the watch. He doubts it's a redial. Said the movement was in excellent condition for the age of the watch and there was no water damage. We purposely did not polish the case or touch the dial. We did ask for him to take the scratches out of the crystal which he did. A thought that came to my mind is why would someone redial the watch but leave the crystal untouched? Doesn't make sense to me. Anyways - the journey continues. Next stop is to probably reach out to Omega.

Omega won’t be able to help with the dial, they will just offer an extract based on the serial number. I too think the dial never left Bienne like that. Too many issues including misaligned min track and also missing lume from the wells at the end of the indices. No visible Swiss text either, though that can be hidden. Dials weren’t always re-done due to water damage, sometimes the old radium lume degraded the dial so badly they needed repainting.

 

[jwr]

FWIW 2.0 - Do have pictures of my dad wearing the watch that date back to 1958. Dial is a match.

 

[felsby]

J jwr

FWIW 2.0 - Do have pictures of my dad wearing the watch that date back to 1958. Dial is a match.

Yes, even though it shows minute irregularities, the dial is too elaborately finished for a redial.

 

[Shabbaz]

J jwr

FWIW 2.0 - Do have pictures of my dad wearing the watch that date back to 1958. Dial is a match.

Is it possible to share these with us?

 

[jwr]

this is best we have so far.

 

[jwr]

zoomed in a bit more

 

[Shabbaz]

Cool picture!

 

[jwr]

We found the box the watch came in but no paperwork (would have been nice). My mom is confident the watch was never serviced. It's been sitting in a drawer for about the last 50 years. I do agree the dial appears painted but from what I've read, and you all know there's a lot (and a lot of opinions!) to read, this does not mean the watch in its present state, differs in any way from when it was originally purchased. As I understand from scrolling through Omegaaddict.com Omega did not brand the Seamaster on the dial until after 1950ish. The movement dates around to around 1955 per Omega's vintage database. I think I have that right but have not had a direct hit on the reference#. Going back to the watchmaker this weekend and we'll get a look at the serial #. this has really sent me down a rabbit hole...

 

[jwr]

I should have said above that as far as I can tell the dial and the movement were not necessarily manufactured at the same time. The dial appears to be older than the movement. So maybe the dial was fit to this movement and it's one of those Franken-watches. I don't know but that's where I'm at right now. and I apologize if I don't use the right terminology...

 

[Concer]

J jwr

My mom is confident the watch was never serviced.

The watch has been at least two times in the hands of a watchmaker. There are two signs on the inside of the cover. BUT… whatever. Don’t spend too much time in investigate in this case if the dial was repainted or not. Take it as it is and have fun with it. I think we all are getting sometimes to deep on this investigation path instead of just enjoying the watch as it is.

Cheers
Oli

 

[Shabbaz]

Concer

The watch has been at least two times in the hands of a watchmaker. There are two signs on the inside of the cover. BUT… whatever. Don’t spend too much time in investigate in this case if the dial was repainted or not. Take it as it is and have fun with it. I think we all are getting sometimes to deep on this investigation path instead of just enjoying the watch as it is.

Cheers
Oli

+1

 

[jwr]

Concer

The watch has been at least two times in the hands of a watchmaker. There are two signs on the inside of the cover. BUT… whatever. Don’t spend too much time in investigate in this case if the dial was repainted or not. Take it as it is and have fun with it. I think we all are getting sometimes to deep on this investigation path instead of just enjoying the watch as it is.

Cheers
Oli

Your point is well taken. As I've said prior the value is entirely sentimental. I have no intention of selling the watch. Perhaps though it's like researching a family tree. You want to know your roots. For this watch i'm so curious to its origins. if i had been able to easily identify a similar dial or had a match of the reference# this would be fairly open/shut. But I keep running into dead ends or at least no resolution (yet). Probably doesn't help that I have no experience with vintage watches. I'm not trying to argue with anyone but I don't feel satisfied with the explanations so far. As for the inside cover - i do see that there is an etching with what appears to be the #s 516107. The writing in green is of the watchmaker who just serviced the watch. Is/was there a standard "code" that watchmakers use so you they could be identified later?