Hello all,
I recently acquired this old seamaster. I was hoping the knowledge base here could assist me in shedding some light on the ol girl. It was a 25 year service award and I got it as a full ser. I think I did OK at $375.00, feel free to tell me otherwise. I'm not familiar with this reference.

 

I think one thread is sufficient.

 

I agree, my phone went a litte wonky. Im trying to figure out how to delete one

 

That's pretty cool that you got the original box with it. Does the date on the engraving match the serial number? Have you researched the reference on the Omega Vintage Database site?

 

The inscription matches the warranty card stapled in the owners book. I've yet to research the movement serial number but I cant imagine it being very far off. I don't think it was worn very much.

 

Well, sadly, we can't help you since you haven't posted photos of the inscription or of the warranty card.

 

The pic is a bit blurry, but it definitely looks like a redial to me. And I do not think this kind of case can be waterproof - not sure though as I cannot see very well if a gasket can be put in it.

 

The blurry pic also made me think it could be a redial, but the wrist shot shows the Seamaster script to be much finer and sharper.

Correctly focussed shots would help.

 

I agree the wrist shot looks better. Let's wait for a better front pic!

 

Lumed hands, but I don't see any lume plots on the dial. That is a bad sign usually.

 

Nice package but looks like a redial to me.

 

I took a few more and hopefully better photos. I don't know if it is a redial as it looks as though it was never used much if at all. Thank for all of your help this far. The inscription and sale date point to 1976. I haven't been able to find much in the Omega archives and a search for the reference number does not produce much either.

 

I think that the dial is ok and the problem is due to the low light the photos were evidently taken in. This can cause script to look significantly heavier, as per the two photos below of the same watch - with original dial - taken under different light conditions. You will not get an informed opinion on your watch until you provide better-lit photos.

 

In the low light pictures the print seems pretty thick, you should share some daylight pictures..

 

Ok, another attempt at well lit daylight photos

 

Nice set, I'm not sure but I do not think it is a re-dial, maybe somebody more expert could be sure about the opposite?

 

After zooming in, that dial still looks original to me. There are lume spaces at the marker ends but it looks as if all the lume either fell out or was cleaned out at some stage. The only thing I don't understand is why no T on the dial if the watch is from 76, but there may be an explanation for this and I think the quality is too high to be a redial. The hands and markers appear to have onyx inserts, which is a nice extra touch.

 

It may be the pictures but I don't like it.

I take the point that the font looks good and it does. The M and G in Omega look perfect.

But the cleanliness of the dial, no traces of lume at the tip of the markers, the overly thick font, high Swiss Made and lack of T's. I don't closely follow this reference so it may be correct but it has a few generic red flags for me.

 

I can believe the font, as these were (as you know) made by different subcontractors and inconsistencies do occur. Likewise I have seen the high Swiss Made before, but I don't follow this particular reference closely either so don't know if that applies here. The lack of lume and T's is a concern. Hard to be definitive one way or the other; we need someone to chime in who knows these later dress Seamasters.

 

Thank you all for your help this far!! It's a classy watch, to me at least. I was excited to find it last year and in such good condition. The shop has a near identical one with the full set as well but I couldn't see having 2 nearly identical watches. The company was a well known firm in the Rochester NY area. The original price tag shows $175.00.