Dating a vintage Seamaster

[Velorum]

Just wondering whether any forum experts can confirm the date of this vintage Seamaster fitted with a 285 manual wind movement.

Here it is:



Here is a picture of the movement:



The serial number is 17717260

As I understand it serial numbers 17000000 to 17999999 were allocated to watches made in 1959

Is that right?

[Nigeyp]

from some digging i did when i had a 1972 omega, it seemed apparent the start of the serial run confirmed anything up to 6 years hence...from the vagaries of the internet...so it could be as late as 1965. Even if you are sure of the commencement of the production runs. Which is why i've become very suspicious of sites selling birth year watches. Shame it isn't a longines a quick email and they will check it to prime audited records. Doubt you will be-able to rely on answers on a casual watch forum.

[PickleB]

How about Ref CK 14390? The net shows various dials but this one looks similar...link.

Omega date it as being from 1959 (or later, I presume)...link.

[walkerwek1958]

According to my sources (NOT internet-based, a reliable paper thing on my bookshelf) it's got to be 1960, probably late '60. The date of sale of the watch is a different matter!

I'm sure there would be some time lag between movements being produced and finding a home in a case, just in time manufactutring didn`t exist in those days!

I`d estimate the movement to be produced in 1960 and the watch sold around 1961.

Paul

[Velorum]

Thanks gents!

[Velorum]

From the far from perfect photo would anyone care to venture an opinion on the dial and hands?

[walkerwek1958]

Dial's been refinished, I`m fairly certain of that.

As for the hands, I`m not sure whether they're original or not. Judging by the condition I`d say they are, but the style looks a bit odd to me. Omega made lots of variants in those days and it's hard to be certain.

Watch looks OK to me, I prefer a nicely refinished dial to a scruffy original, but the ideal 'find' is an original dial that's still in nice condition.

Edit: Had another look at the pics and I’m less sure about the dial. The printing looks a bit heavy and overall it looks very clean, but I can’t be sure.

As for the hands, it’s the hr hand that bothers me, it seems to have more lume and less metal than I’d expect, but the minute hand looks fine and the length looks OK.

[PickleB]

For a date, the best way to go would be an Extract of the Archives, but that carries some (not inconsiderable) expense.

As for the face and hands, my opinion shouldn't be given any weight but it looks as though the hands are likely to be original and so the dial may simply be well preserved or it may have been cleaned (along with the hands and with or without some restoration work). The case seems to have survived well. Maybe the watch wasn't worn daily by its owner?

[walkerwek1958]

Given the cost involved I don’t see much point in using the archive facility, I don’t see why it matters whether the watch was new in 1960 or 1962! It doesn’t add anything, the movement can be dated pretty well to 1960 and it’s fair to assume the watch was sild new between 1960 and 1962.

Sometimes it’s better to step back a little, enjoy these watches for what they are. If you like it, buy it, if not, don’t. It’s all too easy to over- think these things thesedays.

If I was to be critical on this one I’d look to improve the hands to match the sharpness of the dial, that would involve reluming at the very least, or possibly replacement.

I’ve just finished restoring an early 70s steel Omega Geneve on an integral bracelet, the bracelet’s been replaced at some point, the dial’s refinished, the hands are NOS replacements sourced at significant expense and they’re fractionally longer than the orginals. All this will have the purists wringing their hands, but the watch looks stunning, on the wrist it looks like a virtually new watch and I’m pleased with the outcome.

The prices of old Omegas are still relatively modest and I think it makes sense to enjoy them rather than get too hung up on details and originality.....provided the prices being paid are realistic!

[PickleB]

The dial has well preserved (apparently) dots of old tritium (I think) lume that may be hard to match...at least in a way that is pleasing to the eye. Given that the lume dots won't function as such, it may be that the OP's best bet is simply to clean the hands up a little, as there does seem to be some residue on the hour hand. I'd ask one of the lume experts on here before making a decision if it were my watch.

[Horologos]

Lovely old Omega Seamaster.

[snowman]

It's very much like (although nicer than...) my 1961 (supposedly) Seamaster 30



Although, now I look, the 'Seamaster' script is very different between the two (not sure that means anything, though...)

M

[walkerwek1958]

It's very much like (although nicer than...) my 1961 (supposedly) Seamaster 30



Although, now I look, the 'Seamaster' script is very different between the two (not sure that means anything, though...)

M

Around 1960, the S in the Seamaster script changed from the long-tailed S to the more conventional S that's still used today. However, there seems to have been a crossover period of at least a couple of years. I`ve seen the later type S on 50s watches that I`m convinced had original dials, an I`ve seen the long-tailed S on watches as new as 1962!

Refinished dials often have the long-tailed S looking wrong, but I`ve seen slight differences in the script between original dials too!

I don`t get too hung up on stuff like this, I don`t want to get as bad as the Rolex folks who seem to be obsessed over such minor details.