Advice on Omega Seamaster
Discussion
Hi guys
I don't have much experience at all buying watches but a few weeks ago I was on eBay (after a few beers) and bought the following, which has just arrived from the US.
I am wondering if I could get advice on the authenticity of the watch. I think it looks fine, although the condition could be a bit better. I was more worried after discovering that the luminous material had fallen off the minute hand in transit and is now loose on top of the dial, as can be seen in this image beside the date.
Some images (I do need to cut my nails, sorry):
http://i.imgur.com/e79HlpX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ppsZscR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/yKHeCRG.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/hGxaL21.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xtySKbS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/bFy9fDg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/t2w4QDp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jxOxBvL.jpg
The movement looks ok and the second hand moves smoothly rather than in increments of a second. The stamp inside reads 168.022 which from a cursory google image search seems to correspond. There is an Omega logo etched in the centre of the glass. The strap isn't original, but the seller's listing made that clear. Am I being paranoid?
Any advice or comment would be much appreciated!
I don't have much experience at all buying watches but a few weeks ago I was on eBay (after a few beers) and bought the following, which has just arrived from the US.
I am wondering if I could get advice on the authenticity of the watch. I think it looks fine, although the condition could be a bit better. I was more worried after discovering that the luminous material had fallen off the minute hand in transit and is now loose on top of the dial, as can be seen in this image beside the date.
Some images (I do need to cut my nails, sorry):
http://i.imgur.com/e79HlpX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ppsZscR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/yKHeCRG.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/hGxaL21.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xtySKbS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/bFy9fDg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/t2w4QDp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jxOxBvL.jpg
The movement looks ok and the second hand moves smoothly rather than in increments of a second. The stamp inside reads 168.022 which from a cursory google image search seems to correspond. There is an Omega logo etched in the centre of the glass. The strap isn't original, but the seller's listing made that clear. Am I being paranoid?
Any advice or comment would be much appreciated!
Nothing much wrong with that, Nice mid-60s Seamaster and looks in pretty good nick.
The only reservation is that the Omega database lists it as having the 564 (chronometer certified) movement rather than the 563 it's fitted with:
http://www.omegawatches.com/planet-omega/heritage/...
That could well be a mistake on their database - afaik they labelled all their chronometers on the dial, which this one doesn't have. Unfortunately, the database hasn't got a photo of that model so it's just possible that it's a complete movement and dial swap at some point but my gut feeling would be that it's a simple database mistake.
Pity about the lume falling out, but that's always a risk when they reach a certain age. It's not a major job to have it re-lumed but matching the original shade could be challenging so you'd probably be better off just having the loose bits removed unless the half-empty hand really upsets you.
The only reservation is that the Omega database lists it as having the 564 (chronometer certified) movement rather than the 563 it's fitted with:
http://www.omegawatches.com/planet-omega/heritage/...
That could well be a mistake on their database - afaik they labelled all their chronometers on the dial, which this one doesn't have. Unfortunately, the database hasn't got a photo of that model so it's just possible that it's a complete movement and dial swap at some point but my gut feeling would be that it's a simple database mistake.
Pity about the lume falling out, but that's always a risk when they reach a certain age. It's not a major job to have it re-lumed but matching the original shade could be challenging so you'd probably be better off just having the loose bits removed unless the half-empty hand really upsets you.
A perforated or big hole racing strap will suit that, particularly with the orange hand.
I concur with the above- looks all pretty good to me. Omega logo'd crystal is a good sign - means original or authentic replacement hesalite. Lots of dubious franken-omegas floating about but you have done ok.
A couple of other examples of this one I have seen with the orange hand also did not have the chronometer on the dial. I have also seen some fitted with a 565 movement - the 565 being the non-certifed version of the 564 I believe but otherwise identical.
There was one on german ebay not long ago as it happens, with a 565 and a non chronometer dial: http://www.ebay.de/itm/OMEGA-SEAMASTER-AUTOMATIC-D...
As for the lume, see how much it bugs you having it missing....
it drives me mad on the single piece of mine that has a lump of missing lume on one of the hands, but I will never get a match for (very) aged radium and would be reluctant to do it even if I could get it matched, so have learned to live with it.
I concur with the above- looks all pretty good to me. Omega logo'd crystal is a good sign - means original or authentic replacement hesalite. Lots of dubious franken-omegas floating about but you have done ok.
A couple of other examples of this one I have seen with the orange hand also did not have the chronometer on the dial. I have also seen some fitted with a 565 movement - the 565 being the non-certifed version of the 564 I believe but otherwise identical.
There was one on german ebay not long ago as it happens, with a 565 and a non chronometer dial: http://www.ebay.de/itm/OMEGA-SEAMASTER-AUTOMATIC-D...
As for the lume, see how much it bugs you having it missing....
it drives me mad on the single piece of mine that has a lump of missing lume on one of the hands, but I will never get a match for (very) aged radium and would be reluctant to do it even if I could get it matched, so have learned to live with it.Edited by GCH on Wednesday 29th April 08:57
Dial - Original, very good condition for its age. On a repaint you lose the brushed effect.
Crystal - Too good to be the original, "Armoured Hesalite" is just a posh way of saying "plastic" and they scratch quite easily. This has been replaced but it's been replaced with the pukka Omega part.
Case - Looks like a 60's Seamaster to me, Rubber seal looks new, very little pitting to the case around the seal where the sweat usually gets in.
Movement - From what you've shown us, it looks superb. Bridges all the same colour, check. No corrosion on steel parts, check. Screw heads not mangled - check. In fact the screw heads are so clean I'd worry that it's never been serviced!
Hands - The lack of lume would bother me. I'd get them both re-lumed, as the lume won't be working anyway. Don't get the dial re-lumed, it's much harder to do and will spoil the dial.
So all in all, that looks like a pretty exceptional condition for a Seamaster. I wouldn't worry about the 563/564 movement. As Variomatic points out, if the watch was supposed to have a 564, the dial would carry the word "Chronometer". I'd say that this is either an Omega database error, or that it had the wrong caseback applied in manufacture. I don't believe that this has been re-cased. The parts we can see are in too good condition to have been removed from a scrap case.
Personally, I'd guess that its had a new crystal, new case seal and maybe a polish before being sold.
As a collector of mainly vintage watches I'm a bit jealous, that's a good one.
Crystal - Too good to be the original, "Armoured Hesalite" is just a posh way of saying "plastic" and they scratch quite easily. This has been replaced but it's been replaced with the pukka Omega part.
Case - Looks like a 60's Seamaster to me, Rubber seal looks new, very little pitting to the case around the seal where the sweat usually gets in.
Movement - From what you've shown us, it looks superb. Bridges all the same colour, check. No corrosion on steel parts, check. Screw heads not mangled - check. In fact the screw heads are so clean I'd worry that it's never been serviced!
Hands - The lack of lume would bother me. I'd get them both re-lumed, as the lume won't be working anyway. Don't get the dial re-lumed, it's much harder to do and will spoil the dial.
So all in all, that looks like a pretty exceptional condition for a Seamaster. I wouldn't worry about the 563/564 movement. As Variomatic points out, if the watch was supposed to have a 564, the dial would carry the word "Chronometer". I'd say that this is either an Omega database error, or that it had the wrong caseback applied in manufacture. I don't believe that this has been re-cased. The parts we can see are in too good condition to have been removed from a scrap case.
Personally, I'd guess that its had a new crystal, new case seal and maybe a polish before being sold.
As a collector of mainly vintage watches I'm a bit jealous, that's a good one.
Nice analysis, Mike 
One caution on crystals (not in this case, but generally). There is now a range of generic crystals available that do have an Omega symbol in the centre. Since Cousins are selling them openly, I assume someone's found a legitimate way to do this without trademark issues - whether licenced (unlikely given Swatch Group's policies), using an altered font, or some other get-out I don't know.
May have to order one and compare with a genuine under the microscope.
One caution on crystals (not in this case, but generally). There is now a range of generic crystals available that do have an Omega symbol in the centre. Since Cousins are selling them openly, I assume someone's found a legitimate way to do this without trademark issues - whether licenced (unlikely given Swatch Group's policies), using an altered font, or some other get-out I don't know.
May have to order one and compare with a genuine under the microscope.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff