WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

Golden Omega cal. 266, circa 1954 - Redial?

3K views 14 replies 9 participants last post by  Gaspode 
#1 ·
Hello, everyone!

I'd appreciate some help from fellow admirers of vintage Omega watches. Looking at the pictures below, can anyone say if the specimen in question is all original or was redialed? And the movement? Is it OK or has it been messed up? Seller asks +/- USD 860.00 for the piece. Is it a fair price?

Analog watch Watch Watch accessory Fashion accessory Jewellery
Fashion accessory Material property Metal Jewellery
Analog watch Watch Wrist Watch accessory Fashion accessory
Analog watch Watch Watch accessory Fashion accessory Strap
Wrist Hand Arm Cash Finger
Fashion accessory Watch Watch accessory Strap Jewellery
 
See less See more
6
#2 ·
The dial pictures aren't the best but what I can see doesn't give me any signs of a re-dial. Movement looks legit to me also. The case is very harshly cleaned. I was going to say polished but it looks like someone polished it with a wire brush. I don't know enough about fakes, so I would wait for more experienced collectors to respond.
 
#5 ·
Is it possible to repair the case?
 
#7 ·
Whats wrong with the case?

Also-as stated-the real money shot for a good opinion on re-dial would be a straight on close up of dial. the elliptical view makes it difficult. it appears the last 'a' in omega could be authentic. thats as far as i would go.
 
#6 ·
Repair the case? Can't see anything broken in there... However, if anything needs to be done with the watch, and just given the position of the regulator- there absolutely is, at that price I'd look for a better specimen.

Regarding authenticity- there are two extremely important things missing here. The first one is a decent picture of the dial- at first glance, it looks like the dial is OK, but would I feel comfortable giving a verdict based on these pictures only? Absolutely not.
The second one is a picture of both sides of the case back- the inner side should have all the hallmarks (should it indeed be solid gold), and more importantly- the reference number of the watch, which allows running a check on it in the OVD, or at least looking up similar specimens all over the internets.

That said, these pictures just aren't enough to determine the authenticity of the watch, but they do show a few things (the case and the regulator) that would be just about enough to make me walk away from this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: efauser
#8 ·
mkws and DaBaeker, when I asked about repairing the case, I referred to that rough polishment it was submitted to. The case show scratches everywhere. Can it be amended?
 
#9 ·
It theoretically can. But then again, given that the result might be an overpolished case, then the choice sums up to overpolished v. scratched. And if I were to choose between bad and bad, I'd prefer not to choose at all.
 
#10 ·
OK, gentleman. I thank you all for your valuable considerations. I dug up a little more and found this one, a Seamaster:

Watch Fashion accessory Brass Jewellery Watch accessory
Fashion accessory Watch accessory Silver Jewellery Watch
Technology Circle
Watch Auto part Automotive wheel system Wheel Metal


It's a 1974 piece, equipped with a 564 caliber. Not solid gold, as seller remarks. Priced at +/- USD 600. What say you?
 
#11 · (Edited)
It's a goldcap variant, the case was made for Omega by the Central Watch Case Co. of Biel (as indicated by the C.B. stamp).

I must say, that the watch doesn't convince me. The fonts appear correct at first glance- but I cannot see the tritium "T" markings by the "Swiss Made" inscription.

The OVD lists a steel variant- ST 166.0067, but it should have a calibre 565, and the reference was discontinued in 1973, which would rule out 1974 as the year of manufacture.
https://www.omegawatches.com/planet...ache=1&cHash=74606062cca07ada51e38c969b90af79
A specimen manufactured in, say, 1973, but with a movement from 1971/1972 would be fine, I've seen larger gaps between cases and movements. Of course, the OVD might omit the fact of using another version of the same calibre in a particular reference, as a matter of fact they've done that a few times already. Nevertheless, I would be most unwilling to give the watch an "all clear" without further proof of using the calibre 564 in that reference, and definitely not without a better picture of the dial. That said, the OVD has a lot of mistakes, but it's the only resource out there, at least the only one that can be used to identify this watch. And if the watch is inconsistent with it- I believe that such a watch is pretty suspicious, to say the least.

Besides, the calibre 564 was a certified chronometer (on the contrary to the 565). Why would a 564 come with a dial without the chronometer inscription, that's suspicious as well.

In my opinion, it might be a "marriage" watch (franken, but all components made by the same manufacturer)
 
  • Like
Reactions: busmatt
#15 ·
I wouldn't rule out the first one as being completely bogus - I have a similar 266 in a 80µ gold-plated case by Central Watch Company - it's marked up on the inside with the usual Omega markings (case ref 2512-13) so I assume that CWC were licensed to make cases in certain markets (mine came from South Africa) - it may just be that they put the hallmarks on the outside of the case for the solid gold cases....
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top