OK...well I seem to have confirmed that a recent acquisition is authentic (hopefully) and likely solid 14k.

However, it has been referred to as a "Puzzle" due to case & movement ID mismatches in databases. And I have been finding consistency deficiencies in the style, dial and material (gold) in trying to piece together it's History.

Here is what I have so far...

It appears to be a 1951 (solid?) 14k yellow gold 343 Bumper, w/sub-second and Roman Numeral Dial.

One member wrote: "According to the OVD entry, the case reference 2583 should house a calibre 332 movement (30.10mm) and have a press-in back. Whereas your watch has a calibre 343 (28.10mm) and has a screw-in back. I would like to see a picture of the entire movement, not just a detail. On the movement, the 343 is the calibre identification, and 12628067 is the movement serial number, which dates it as already mentioned to 1951. Inside the case back, the various stamps indicate that it is solid 14k gold. 2583 is the case style reference number, and 10922405 is the case serial number. By this time, only solid gold cases were being given a serial number." and also "Other 2583 do exist. Here is a steel one, 2583-4, for sale from Belgium, and yes, it has a screw back. Unfortunately the seller does not specify the movement calibre."
My question(s) are...how is it that there seem to be so many inconsistencies in these Vintage watches? Is it due to Custom Ordering back then, or various Market differences?

Makes it a little difficult to track history and verify authenticity, no?

 

The short answer to your question is . . . that there is no simple answer. Especially when we go back to the 1940s and 1950s. Many members on this site have spent years studying the archaeology and history of a tiny slice of Omega output, and have become very knowledgeable. But even they would admit that there are still gaps in their knowledge.

Funnily enough, that's why we find the whole thing fascinating and compelling. Like any worthwhile field of study, you can never know all the answers. If that frustrates you, then you might be better off purchasing a brand-new Omega watch instead, with the warranty card and the sense of security that gives you. To understand vintage anything (watches, guitars, cameras, cars) you have to be prepared to put in the hours of study, debate and observation that it takes to get good at it.

As far as this particular watch goes, it is a puzzle. Like I said before, the Omega database does not usually get it this wrong. And this is where the archaeology (the physical evidence of your watch) and the history (the documentary evidence from the database) conflict. As a professional archaeologist and historian for most of my career, I am used to that and have encountered such conflicts many times. What we need is a bigger sample

 

Hi John. Thank you so much! Actually, I am very excited to have a "puzzle" watch and am more interested in this one than any other because of that factor (having a receipt and warrnty card is nice, but you are correct...the "story" is what I am finding fascinating and compelling!). I started into this "hoby" when I wanted a "new" Seamaster and stumbled across a Vintage one that I fell in love with (It is being serviced now otherwise I would post pics) and quickly with vintages in general.

That one makes more "sense" though. Truthfully, if I had researched more before, I might have passed on this but now I am incredibly interested in learing it's history (which I thought would be a snap with the internet, but am almost pleasantly surprised to find it more challenging).

I figured knowing "why" so many diffrences/discrepencies exist, might help me figure out where to research to find more answers to "how".

As I mentioned in my other post, I never felt this was "valuable" from an investment standpoint as other collectable vintages seem to be. But, I like that it feels like it might have a story to it. And I would like to learn the story if I can.

You mentioned in the other post that it was "unfortunate" that the dial was refinished. Why do collectors prefer unrefubished pieces, even if the original condition is not very good? (I get the value of Original, but if Original bad/poor...wouldn't good/decent cleaned up/polished/refinished be better?)

I am guessing the reason the external hallmarks are difficult to make out could be due to polishing/refinishing?

Thanks again, ever so much, for your time and knowledge!

 

In just a little surfing I found an 11 year old thread in the NAWCC archives referring to a ref 2583 with a cal 332, no photos or other identifying information was given in the thread.

I'm leaning toward the OVD having an incorrect notation as to the type of back found on the ref 2583, I have found this sort of incorrect information there on more than one occasion.

Make what you want of the information regarding the movement I found noted above.

 

Thank you very much for doing a little searching for me! That confirms the "puzzle" as my 2583 appears to house a cal 343.

I am going to have to learn how to utilize resources better! Also just learing what all these codes and numbers mean and how they relate to each other.

OK...I have to ask the dumb question...what does OVD stand for? My guess..."Omega Vintage Database"??

So, it is primarily the age of these watches and the archiving of information that makes the research so (difficult) much fun?! Definately interesting stuff!

 

Yes, OVD = Omega Vintage Database.

I hate to use the word "rare" in connection with anything Omega, as the term is so overused and misused. So we'll settle for "scarce".
The case reference 2583 seems to be a very scarce model, and you can test this theory by doing a search on any watch forum, eBay, or of course just Google it. You could start a thread here asking all 2583 owners to post a picture of their watch and movement, and I would be happy to bet that you would not get many replies. Well, perhaps one from Hoi . . .

Whereas, for example, if you posted asking for reference 2577 you would be snowed under with replies. So the problem we have with your watch is a very small sample for study, and we don't really know what the standard parameters are, in terms of case style, dial designs, or even the movement. There are a lot of serious experts frequenting this forum who really do know their stuff with the classic immediate post-WWII watches, and apart from Norm none of them have chipped in. I'm sure that they must have seen this thread, so we can only assume that they are stumped too . . .

 

John, Thank you again for your replies and for sharing your knowledge.

This is beginining to make more sense to me.

Truthfully I was beginning to get a little paranoid at the lack of posts/input/opinion as the first couple post noted the expectation of seeing a different movment with that case, and there were a lot of views. Maybe the "pros " did not want to hurt my feelings with the truth? I know the mantra here is "ask before you buy" . As I mentioned, I am very new to the Vintage game and brandy new to the Forum.

Then your information that this didn't necessarily mean it was "wrong" got me very interested in, not just my watch, but any Vintage that didn't seem to fit the "rules" and why/how this happens.

Sounds like it helps to be a bit of a historian as well.

I really appreciate your communications!

 

Don't worry too much. The OVD is to blame and because you are new to the game also.

If you were a top notch vintage collector who just acquired a 2577 Seamaster powered by a 352 (which is wrong according to OVD) people stilll say congrats , nobody says anything about "frankened"

 

Ok, the silence I broken . Thanks Hoi!

I am told you may have a 2583 you could share?!