ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Incurable · 7 October 2007, 07:06 PM

I'm seeing some anomalies here... Maybe it's just photographic issues but... How much of this watch is original? Experts chime in please...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA:IT&ih=003

SPACE-DWELLER · 7 October 2007, 07:55 PM

I think it looks okay. Cannot see any anomalities on it

jac67 · 7 October 2007, 08:42 PM

Although the watch look great, I personally don't like the fact that it has been refurbished with new parts.

What I mean is the dial has been refurbished. Although Omega did the work, the "vintage" feel of the watch has been taken away.

If a NOS dial was used, then ok, but a refurbished dial using what I believe is luminova would adversely affect the price and collectability.

New crown and pushers are fine because they are indistinguishable, BUT the dial is too noticeable.

But the watch does look GREAT.

John.

timebroker · 7 October 2007, 09:54 PM

The serial number suggests that it is from late 1951 so him having it sent to Omega and saying it is from 1953 seems odd, maybe it was produced in '51 and sold in '53 dunno.
The 321 caliber was used in Seamasters between 1946 and 1968 so that one is quite early.

My only problem I have with the watch are the hands, to my knowledge they should be dauphine and not the radium type.
All the Seamasters in gold from that period of which I have pictures or seen in real life had dauphine or semi dauphine.

It should probably go a lot higher than 2500 dollar so be prepared to pay 4000 maybe even 5000, these are very rare and collectible.
A private collector I know payed 4500 a couple of months ago for a similar seamaster in gold with 321 cal. of that era.

Good luck.

Oh yeah, I would ask if he has the original servicing paper from Omega, that would clear everything up!
Excellent redial by the way!
Could provide pictures of similar watches from Omega advertisements but I have to look for them :)

Incurable · 7 October 2007, 11:08 PM

The hands bothered me a bit as well. Though spotless, the dial also appears too modern. I spotted a similar vintage Seamaster a few months ago that looked great but the re-dial was a deal breaker. Indeed, this is a wonderful watch, and (at least touted as) made the very year I was born. Part of me is very tempted...

7 October 2007, 07:06 PM	#1
Incurable "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Pat Location: PNW Watch: your P's and Q's Posts: 2,549	Expert Opinions Please... I'm seeing some anomalies here... Maybe it's just photographic issues but... How much of this watch is original? Experts chime in please... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA:IT&ih=003 __________________ Rolex GMT Master II 16710 (Blk/Blk) Rolex Explorer 114270 Sinn 356 Sa Flieger Limes Endurance 1Tausend Too many others... #2592 It may seem like I'm doing nothing but, at a cellular level, I'm actually quite busy...

7 October 2007, 07:55 PM	#2
SPACE-DWELLER "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Bo Location: Denmark Watch: Rolex, of course! Posts: 22,436	I think it looks okay. Cannot see any anomalities on it __________________ With kind regards, Bo LocTite 221: The Taming Of The Screw...

7 October 2007, 09:54 PM	#4
timebroker "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Filip Location: Belgium Posts: 1,619	The serial number suggests that it is from late 1951 so him having it sent to Omega and saying it is from 1953 seems odd, maybe it was produced in '51 and sold in '53 dunno. The 321 caliber was used in Seamasters between 1946 and 1968 so that one is quite early. My only problem I have with the watch are the hands, to my knowledge they should be dauphine and not the radium type. All the Seamasters in gold from that period of which I have pictures or seen in real life had dauphine or semi dauphine. It should probably go a lot higher than 2500 dollar so be prepared to pay 4000 maybe even 5000, these are very rare and collectible. A private collector I know payed 4500 a couple of months ago for a similar seamaster in gold with 321 cal. of that era. Good luck. Oh yeah, I would ask if he has the original servicing paper from Omega, that would clear everything up! Excellent redial by the way! Could provide pictures of similar watches from Omega advertisements but I have to look for them :) Last edited by timebroker; 7 October 2007 at 10:08 PM.. Reason: extra

7 October 2007, 11:08 PM	#5
Incurable "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Pat Location: PNW Watch: your P's and Q's Posts: 2,549	The hands bothered me a bit as well. Though spotless, the dial also appears too modern. I spotted a similar vintage Seamaster a few months ago that looked great but the re-dial was a deal breaker. Indeed, this is a wonderful watch, and (at least touted as) made the very year I was born. Part of me is very tempted... __________________ Rolex GMT Master II 16710 (Blk/Blk) Rolex Explorer 114270 Sinn 356 Sa Flieger Limes Endurance 1Tausend Too many others... #2592 It may seem like I'm doing nothing but, at a cellular level, I'm actually quite busy...

7 October 2007, 08:42 PM	#3
jac67 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: John Location: Australia Watch: Me Posts: 1,950	Although the watch look great, I personally don't like the fact that it has been refurbished with new parts. What I mean is the dial has been refurbished. Although Omega did the work, the "vintage" feel of the watch has been taken away. If a NOS dial was used, then ok, but a refurbished dial using what I believe is luminova would adversely affect the price and collectability. New crown and pushers are fine because they are indistinguishable, BUT the dial is too noticeable. But the watch does look GREAT. John.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)