What year?

Posts
34
Likes
9
I was recently given my father’s Seamaster by my mother. He died two years ago. I was hoping someone might recognise the likely year it is from. Here is photo. It looks very similar to two Constellations I saw on the forum debate about Seamaster v Constellation.

 
Posts
928
Likes
595
All the details of age and reference are available when the case back is opened. The long reference number on the movement can be looked up to give you the approximate year. Good luck.
 
Posts
34
Likes
9
I was hoping that someone could suggest a year, as I don’t wish to take the back off until it is sent for a service, which won’t be until I get my 1967 Seamaster back from a service, which could be in 20 weeks.
 
Posts
34
Likes
9
As I said, the watch belonged to my father, and he rarely wore it. It has not been serviced in all that time, so my wearing it every day is a huge change for it. It would gain at least 30 seconds a day for the first couple of weeks but has been improving, and now is down to about 10 or less seconds a day. Is this to be expected?
 
Posts
193
Likes
161
The font style of "Seamaster" indicates that it was likely mid-1960 or earlier.
 
Posts
34
Likes
9
The font style of "Seamaster" indicates that it was likely mid-1960 or earlier.

As in the year 1960, not the 60’s?
 
Posts
13,210
Likes
22,975
I’d say it’s around 1963 give or take a few years.

As others have said, that ‘coat hanger S’ seamaster font was early to mid 60’s.

It’s a unishell case so doesn’t have a caseback. The movement is accessed by removing the bezel and crystal, separating the two piece crown, twisting the movement and removing it from the front.
This case design is fairly robust so it’s not uncommon to find them in good condition.

Very nice original example and perfectly suitable for frequent wear of regularly serviced and kept away from water.
 
Posts
24,371
Likes
54,230
When it goes in for service, you can ask the watchmaker to tell you the movement serial number. Then you can use the Omega serial number chart to look up the year that it was manufactured. Until then, early 60s or late 50s will have to be sufficient.

You con't have to wait to receive your other watch back before sending it for service. In fact, by wearing it daily, you are just creating more wear to the movement parts.
 
Posts
34
Likes
9
I’d say it’s around 1963 give or take a few years.

As others have said, that ‘coat hanger S’ seamaster font was early to mid 60’s.

It’s a unishell case so doesn’t have a caseback. The movement is accessed by removing the bezel and crystal, separating the two piece crown, twisting the movement and removing it from the front.
This case design is fairly robust so it’s not uncommon to find them in good condition.

Very nice original example and perfectly suitable for frequent wear of regularly serviced and kept away from water.

That’s very interesting. It does say waterproof on the back.
The watch now to be keeping time accurately without gaining, as if it has settled down after hardly being worn, and now worn everyday.
 
Posts
24,371
Likes
54,230
That’s very interesting. It does say waterproof on the back.
The Seamaster was a "waterproof" model, obviously. But over time, the seals deteriorate and these watches are often damaged by water. So you should not risk exposure to moisture until it is serviced.
 
Posts
13,210
Likes
22,975
That’s very interesting. It does say waterproof on the back.
The watch now to be keeping time accurately without gaining, as if it has settled down after hardly being worn, and now worn everyday.

As mentioned above, it may be keeping time well, but if it hasn’t been serviced in years the oils will be very dry and contaminated, causing wear to the movement. If it’s worn very sparingly, you could perhaps justify not servicing for a while. However, if it’s worn often, it really should be serviced very soon imo