Hello! I recently purchased an Older Seamaster and saw a few on here and was wondering reference numbers and such since they aren't mentioned on denisteel case backs (atleast from what i see from old threads)!! Thank you!!
Also photos! Because i enjoy seeing photos on threads!!

 

Welcome. These didn't have references. The 4010 is the best you're gonna get and it's likely just a production number. Your watch is a Seamaster with I assume a 501 caliber? Interesting to see a stainless steel seamaster with a local case like yours. Especially as the dial would appear to be proper for a 2846 watch or the like...

 

It's a British version of the 2846 which was a late 50s snap on back auto using the 501 movement. Based on that pic, the Dennison case number was probably 4010 so that may be worth searching for info on.

EDIT cross posted with that above, as you can see we mostly agree but I would say that Dennisons do usually have a case number but it doesn't correspond with Omegas, I have had a 13308 which is a 501 movement model and also a 13322 which has the 30mm movement, both gold. Maybe only the gold cases had numbers.

 

Yes mine does have a Cal 501!
Right, I've seen a couple stainless steel ones with the Dennison case back, but only one had a number close to mine and it was like 3890 or somewhere around there. All of the stainless steel ones ive seen were also cal 501, and had the same dial (but not as bad of shape as mine).

 

What's the logic in having stainless steel cases made by Dennison? I know gold was to avoid import fees. Same logic?

I just assume at a certain point the value proposition is lost when it becomes a two-stage build just to avoid a import fee on a stainless steel watch...

 

A very good question. Perhaps Dennison were able to make the cases cheaper than Omega's Swiss case maker so it made sense. Post War, Omega didn't AFAIK make any cases in house it was always farmed out to CB, HF and countless others. Even Patek supplied Omega with cases. Dennison were a big concern making cases etc for many movement providers so perhaps its made some sense with economies of scale etc.