Does it at least have the seahorse on the back?Dad's watch, designated as a Seamaster in the Omega literature of the day but not so on the watch itself. Thus the sharkskin band for the sake of continuity, doncha know.
View attachment 1566986
Does it at least have the seahorse on the back?Dad's watch, designated as a Seamaster in the Omega literature of the day but not so on the watch itself. Thus the sharkskin band for the sake of continuity, doncha know.
View attachment 1566986
Nope, no designation on the watch at all. It is inscribed on the back with his name and 1955 which is when he graduated high school. Plus it came with this pamphlet which is the only way I knew that Omega had (at least internally) named it Seamaster:Does it at least have the seahorse on the back?
Wondering if maybe Omega swapped out the Seahorse back for a plain back to allow space for engraving. Just a thought.Nope, no designation on the watch at all. It is inscribed on the back with his name and 1955 which is when he graduated high school. Plus it came with this pamphlet which is the only way I knew that Omega had (at least internally) named it Seamaster:
View attachment 1567392
That had never occurred to me but that does make a lot of sense. I may just contact the repair guy and ask him. Stay tuned...Wondering if maybe Omega swapped out the Seahorse back for a plain back to allow space for engraving. Just a thought.
I did an E-bay. Search on vintage Seamasters.That had never occurred to me but that does make a lot of sense. I may just contact the repair guy and ask him. Stay tuned...
Thank you for clarifying that, it looks like the literature was not accurate more than anything.I did an E-bay. Search on vintage Seamasters.
Found several without the seahorse, but all were marked Seamaster on the dial.
The other day I went to put on my Swiss Army watch that I purchased in 1994 and noticed that the watch had stopped.
Time for a new battery.So I ordered a new battery. After changing the battery I noticed that the lume on the minute hand had fallen off/out of the minute hand and that you could now actually see through the minute hand.
View attachment 1567807View attachment 1567804
And the loose pieces of lume were moving around inside the dial.
<snip>...
It’s now as close to the original watch I purchased in 1994 as it’s gonna be.
Honestly, I couldn’t believe the wave of remorse that came over me when I thought the watch was a goner.
So I just had to try and save it.
Good save.
Although I do have an unexplainable attraction to the Laco distressed look.
View attachment 1567889
But the loose bits of lume inside the dial would be a no-go. Well done and it looks fantastic.
Interesting. The position of the picture in that Omega pamphlet does seem to indicate that it is a Seamaster, but maybe that was a layout error in its printing. I am not exactly sure if "sweep second hand" meant anything different back in the 50's, but that is potentially another clue that the pamphlet photo layout is in error. As your watch has a seconds sub-dial and not a sweeping second hand (AFAIK), where the Seamaster is described as having a sweeping seconds.That had never occurred to me but that does make a lot of sense. I may just contact the repair guy and ask him. Stay tuned...
(A couple of hours later)
Well, that was quick @captp. As per the repair fellow it is not a Seamaster, in spite of what the pamphlet says. It is an Omega Automatic.
This now concludes me hijacking a thread!