Shuck just offered (and sold) a wonderful 33.3: https://www.shucktheoyster.com/omega-multiscale-vintage-chronograph-33-3-2/ . IMHO he has the best pics in the bizz but describing this as NOS seems a bit optimistic. Serial is 9.174.447 and per the extract it was delivered to Yugoslavia in 1940.

Now the intruiging things. My one has a serial <10 digits of Shuck's one. When I tried to obtain an extract Omega stated that they could not issue one and returned my money or actually EUR 10 less than I paid that is.....

Anyone who can explain to me how this could happen?

Another thing which may be interesting that in the recent past somebody had some questions about the printing of the subdials. Based on the Shuck one I think we can put that discussion to an end.

First 4 pics are Shucks. Remainder are mine

 

It's very nice but I'd rather have the one you're wearing.

 

NOS is almost as abused as the word “unpolished”

 

Agree - potential buyers missed nothing buying that watch

 

Well I think it is a very nice one but (indeed) not NOS (especially not with the scratch on the back). Mine is IMHO nicer but also not NOS so rather mint or so.

 

The "problem" with shuck is that most of his movements are really, really dirty. When you are a serious dealer you can't sell watches like that.

 

Go search here for threads on him..

 

...and really not serviced at a level the word would deserve.

 

If I may say, if I were a dealer, I would think twice before commenting like this on another dealer's standards, unless one can actually prove that they are low. This kind of comments could backfire at some point…

 

I don't think it's a reach at all. There have been many posting of watches from that dealer where the everything is nice and shiny and clean. Except for the movement. it's hard to miss in their posted movement photos.

 

Why is that dial so clean with a movement that ratty?

 

Very interesting question

 

Questions about the sloppy printing now can be put to rest ? Because one more surfaced? Shucks here is even more sloppy. Outer scale like the 360 , colours running into the next numeral...... And a few colour spot splatters around. That is not Omega standard at the time. Kind regards. Achim

 

These movements tend to look ratty because they are not rhodium-plated nor nickel-plated - the surfaces of plates and bridges are silver-plated and silver tends to evolve grey to black patina (sometimes also rose...) which often looks patchy - its silver sulfide which causes the dark colour.
This evolves over time, not only when a movement is mistreated or neglected...
Well you could replace all screws which have damaged slots to make the movement look better, but who of the buyers will request these extras or pay for this extra service.
Well I must admit for this kind of change this watch sold I think it would be a must to replace all damaged srews...
Just my 2c

 

If you want to see an original example from that period, examine the last Phillips lot 72 for an period silver dial. Black dials from that period are different because of a different production process. Involved an anodisation process instead of printing over. There are some specialists here on the forum, who might know more about these black dial manufacturing process then. But silver dials had very fine details. Like the one at Phillips. Kind regards Achim

 

Can you post a link? Can't find it.

Another, slightly later, 2088 (with wrong hands I guess). Serial 9.387.583: https://chrono-center.de/produkt/om...erer-originalzustand/#lightbox[auto_group]/1/ (first 2 pics)

I think one can conclude that the subdial printing in general is below standard on this reference

 

If you enlarge the movement photo and look at the jewel for the escape wheel, the issues with this movement extend beyond natural aging of the finish.

BTW, all the screws are still available from Omega (not much else for this movement is) so for $5 per screw, they could all look brand new.

 

To my eye, on close inspection, the dial on the chronocenter example may be original, but the Shucktheoyster example is not. They are certainly not identical, and the latter has some sloppy details that would be disappointing, to put it mildly, were they to be found on an original dial.

I also second Achim's suggestion to view the dial of the one at Phillips, as it is clearly original, and the printing is far more fine than the one linked by the OP.

 

Upcoming Phillips lot 72 for posterity:
https://www.phillips.com/detail/omega/CH080120/72