What's going on here then?

Posts
137
Likes
105
Your average black dial Seamaster but with a cal 561 chronometer movement. Yet there's no mention of chronometer on the dial. (or in the ad for that matter)

Redial and someone forgot to put it there or are they supposed to look like this?

 
Posts
137
Likes
105
I figured. But aren't they supposed to say Chronograph then?
 
Posts
15,477
Likes
45,824
Not “chronograph”, no. Chronometer. I don’t have an answer regarding the dial. But as others have said, the dial may not be original.
 
Posts
13,198
Likes
22,952
It says whatever the redialer had a template for. Not necessarily what is correct.
 
Posts
10,440
Likes
16,324
The case number tells you if a watch is a chronometer or not, and a few other things too like is it supposed to be waterproof. A mismatch between case number, dial or movement means some pretty big meddling with the original recipe. That can be a movement swap or redial. Not sure here but it’s always best to start with the assumption that a black dial is a redial then prove otherwise. This one isn’t looking good.
Edited:
 
Posts
137
Likes
105
The case number tells you if a watch is a chronometer or not, and a few other things too like is it supposed to be waterproof. A mismatch between case number, dial or movement means some pretty big meddling with the original recipe. That can be a movement swap or redial. Not sure here but it’s always best to start with the assumption that a black dial is a redial then prove otherwise. This one isn’t looking good.

Well, the thing is that I figured it was a redial but was curious as to whether they had left out Chronometer or whether it was supposed to look like that. When I searched for 166.002 I didn't get a hit on omegawatches.com. However, when I searched 166.0002 I get what's listed as a Seamaster but says Geneva on the dial. Also, it's then supposed to have a 562 / 565 cal.

Now, personally I don't care if it's a redial or not if it looks good enough (because chicks won't know the difference anyway, which is always good to factor in when spending money) nor do I care if it says chronometer or not, for the same reason.

Thus, I have concluded (albeit not confirmed, of course) so far that it's a redial that someone stuck a chronometer movement in, meaning that as a wearer, not collector, one could get a great watch at a good price. (paying for a redialed Geneva) "Great" of course being highly subjective.
 
Posts
3,401
Likes
13,196
Now, personally I don't care if it's a redial or not if it looks good enough (because chicks won't know the difference anyway, which is always good to factor in when spending money)

Huh. In all my time collecting, I’ve never factored in “chicks”. What an enlightening new perspective. 🤦



 
Posts
836
Likes
6,706
Huh. In all my time collecting, I’ve never factored in “chicks”. What an enlightening new perspective. 🤦

Well, what do you expect, dude has bro in his screen name 😁 Honestly, "chick factor" on a collectors' forum is a hilariously refreshing perspective!
 
Posts
2,640
Likes
3,093
It's a Frankestein watch, so don't try to make sense of it, I think it's a good outcome for everyone if you buy it and enjoy it
 
Posts
3,401
Likes
13,196
Agreed. Is it worth 700€ by any standards related to the actual market? Not even closely. But if you don't care it's a redial and a Franken, you just like how it looks and wouldnt want to invest any more time in searching a more promising example then so be it. 😀 You got your reply to the question if it's legit, the next decision is only yours to make.
 
Posts
13,198
Likes
22,952
about 700€ "Good" being subjective of course.

That’s not a good price at all IMO. If it was €200-300 and you don’t care then fair enough but very few people on this forum will say that’s an acceptable price for that watch.
 
Posts
3,951
Likes
11,027
about 700€ "Good" being subjective of course.
By no means a good price. For that money you can get a pretty nice watch, not an adulterated Franken watch.
 
Posts
137
Likes
105
Ok, thanks for the input everyone. I'll save up for a panda instead then, I think!