I've seen this mentioned only once before, so hoping for some clarification from experienced watch watchers. There's a cosmic 2000 attracting a lot of bids at the moment, but it has a straight M as opposed to the m as in Omega logo. I know this implies it's a re-finished dial, but why would someone re-paint a dial and not bother to get this right? Was it done deliberately? Or does this mean its an all-out fake? Or perhaps even genuine?
this is the listing... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-...762256&hash=item213722a093:g:3TEAAOSwnsRaXuA9Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network thanks for looking!
I don't know if the dial is redone or not. The hands are way, way too short. They look like they came from a women's version of the same watch. The crystal is scratched up as is the case. This looks like a mineral glass or sapphire crystal, so it will need replacement. Right now, it's being priced as a parts watch and I would not pay a nickel more than the current bid, and even then, only if I needed parts for another project. gatorcpa
You’re wrong about the hands, owing to the height of the batons the hands run inside them so they have to be short. Very rare I make an appearance on this forum, I repair and restore old Omegas but my philosophy sems to conflict with the general consensus around these parts. I think this watch looks OK but it needs plenty of work. Cosmics can be a nightmare to take apart owing to the unusual case design, I avoid working on them for that reason. paul
Hi Paul, I'm with you on this one, a simple online search shows that the hands are indeed correct. Odd that someone with almost 8000 posts can be so wrong.
Well, generally the minute hand reaches the minute tick marks...And when it does not this generally means hands replaced or redial...and usually we are looking for these anomalies, not for the odd one-in-a-thousand example where the general rule does not apply, in a watch type not very collectable and not very popular around here...
It looks pretty much like this https://www.omegawatches.com/watch-omega-seamaster-cosmic-2000-st-366-0825/ Not a great picture, but does show shorter than usual hands.
I like this particular model, and today's 'unpopular' watch could easily become tomorrow's collectable.
We make no claims of perfection around here, but we are usually fairly accurate. Perhaps when you have 8000 posts you can strive to be more accurate
I, for one, am very happy with the knowledge gatorcpa, ConElPueblo, Norman, ChrisN, Archer, and the rest of the old guard have given us on here. They are only human and we all need to attempt to do our own work anyway. I learn multiple new things every day and am grateful for it. McK
Here is an example of the same watch with longer hands. https://omegaforums.net/threads/omega-seamaster-cosmic-2000-integrated-s-s-bracelet.28114/ The Omega database shows one with short hands. Maybe they are both correct? Dial seems to be a little different. Getting a little tired of the nitpicking. My advice is worth what you pay for it. Which is nothing. gatorcpa
Using the case number of this one gator posted - 3660825, I looked up dials and hands for this case. The dial is listed as 28.5 mm in diameter, and the minute hand is listed as 12.7 mm long. That is measured from the center of the hole to the long tip, and doesn't include the tail portion. That leaves 3 mm on the diameter or 1.5 mm on the radius between the tip of the hand and the edge of the dial...and part of the dial is not visible. Longer hands are correct for this watch certainly, at least according to Omega. I tried checking the same on the watch in that listing, but the case they say this watch has doesn't make sense with the movement. The 166032 case is not for a Cal. 1012 that they say is in this watch, but for 565 or 752. Note the hands on the one listed appear to be gold tone as well, which makes no sense... Cheers, Al
There is a "short handed" Cosmic 2000 featured in this thread. Some of the closeup pictures show just how chunky Omega could make hour markers back in the 70s
The hand length really isn't related to the markers per se - if they wanted tall markers and longer hands, they could do what they have done on many other models. Lengthen the parts that the hands mount to (seconds pinion, cannon pinion, and hour wheel) to raise them up and clear whatever they wanted to clear. For me these short hands look pretty odd, but I'm not a fan of these really funky and chunky watches anyway...they look very 70's and to me that is not a good thing.
Maybe it was just a design philosophy that Omega had at the time. A lot of f3000s (and I'm sure there are others) also feature short hands - especially the hour hand. Anyhow, beauty is in the eye of the beholder