Hello, I just inherited some watches from my father, and this was among them. Admittedly, I'm not a time piece enthusiast, but have really enjoyed learning more about them and their history.As with most things, the more you know about something , the more interesting it becomes. After just poking around a little, this Seamaster seems similar to ones I've seen dating from the late 50's. It has a worn patina that certainly seems like it could be that old. Anyone's input, insight, and knowledge to assist me in learning more about it would be very much appreciated.
It is likely that will end up selling this watch at some point, so, if it is not bad etiquette, anybody's opinion of a fair price would also be welcomed. Thanks so much!

 

Ok........upon further sleuthing I'm thinking my father was duped. The 'S' looks completely wrong. It's a fake, right?

 

Definitely won't be offering it for sale.....a good lesson in forgery

 

I am one step above newb here, but that COULD just mean a redial. My novice 2 cents sees a few probably indications for a redial. The pros here would likely want to see movement shots. A few more photos would also be good.

 

The only Omega C-cases I know of are the Constellations (and that back has no observatory engraved) and the Cosmics (monoblock, not screw-back). Unless I am mistaken (and it has happened before) that is not an Omega case. Or it is, with the back replaced, but it comes from a Constellation. A franken-redialled.

 

The 'coat hanger' S is correct for a 50's/ early 60's Seamaster but it looks at best a partial redial, and both the C case and the crown look Connie to my noobish eyes. A gander at the movement with tell us more.

 

This "S" has nothing alarming, the typography of "seamaster" changed through the years.
However, a C-shap case is more common for 70's watches ..
You should probably ask a watchmaker to open your case and check the serial in the case back and the movement serial.

 

Thanks so much for your insight. Next step is to open her up and get some photos of the innards for further investigation. I found the receipt from when my father bought it.....I thought it was years ago, but actually it was early this year from Ebay. It was listed as a 1966 Seamster Service 553. This is quite fascinating stuff, and I'm quite determined to get to the bottom of this little mystery wristwatch. I appreciate everyone's time and knowledge on here!

 

Ok, finally got some shots of the movement....also, I found out it was sold to my father as a 1966 Seamaster service 553, although the movement has 552 on it. Any thoughts if everything lines up? Is it a redial? Thanks for your insight!

 

No clue if this is real: http://www.watchesbeautifully.com/Omega-552-8x3s3v6k2n3y.html

 

The watch is completely legit, looks like reference 165.026. Just the dial has been refinished - would be interesting and worth a lot more if it hadn't.

The crown is incorrect and the second hand seems broken short, but they're minor things at this point.

 

Does that explain the strange back?

 

What's strange about the back?

PS: see the difference now. Needs clearer photo of the numbers on the inside case back.

 

Looks like reference 165.029 instead. The back is ok.

 

How's this?....Tough to get a clear picture of the writing.

 

166.029 is for a C case DE VILLE.

 

I am a complete newcomer to these watches.....how can you tell that a face has been refinished?

 

You mean the dial? Takes a lot of experience. Read the "learn to fish" thread

 

Thanks.....I will. Everyone's knowledge and expertise is much appreciated.