Omega Diver Generations

[eptaz]

Extremely well done, Alex. You've really put together an excellent reference that's an informative and fun read. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to put this together for us.


It's amazing how much has changed, but classic design never really disappears.


eric

[AAP]

My hats off to you...

Very nicely done - but I get the feeling something is missing...

If I may add this pic I took in Bienne of the diver's display.

Thanks for the journey... through space and time..........

I know there is a model or two I didn't include, like the funky, chunky Seamaster 1000 Megaquartz prototype to the right of the PloProfs. I was really only trying to include production pieces, though. What do you guys think?

[Wytnucls]

Great research Alex. I was surprised to find out that you omitted the Seamaster Chronostop ST 145.008, with the 865 movement. Although the Omega database lists its water rating at 60M, mine is actually engraved 'WATERPROOF - TESTED 120M' on the caseback. Go figure...
Here is one with the diver bezel:

[AAP]

Great research Alex. I was surprised to find out that you omitted the Seamaster Chronostop ST 145.008, with the 865 movement. Although the Omega database lists its water rating at 60M, mine is actually engraved 'WATERPROOF - TESTED 120M' on the caseback. Go figure...
Here is one with the diver bezel:

Alright, Thierry! I'll trust the engraving over the Vintage database (which we know can be iffy at times). I'll add that one in to the group in a bit.

[Blaise]

Alex that is certainly one thorough and informative article. Please sticky it or - even better - move it to the articles section for future research, information or just so we can roll over some of those beauties

:thanks for making this, A! 2 4U

[Wytnucls]

There is no easy way to report inconsistencies with the database.
In this particular case, it looks like the later examples of the ST 145.008 (from 1969) were tested to 120M, instead of 60M. I don't know if there were any differences between the two watches (improved seals perhaps?)

[mamas]

Superb work Alex,
interesting also to see some of the nice pieces out there that some of thge mebers own .

One interesting thisng to see is the omega musaeum divers pic as there does seem to be some pieces with incorrect hands etc..
ie the ck14755 transitional piece with the sword hands (on the top part just below the ck2913.. problem is gthat they never had sword hands on these tarnsitionl pieces.. only candlestick ones.

aslo seamaster 200 bottom left.. the hands are completely wrong

sometimes collectors know more about omegas than the museam itself

[2premo]

Alex,
that is a great piece of work, I really have a soft spot for these early Omega divers, thanks for taking the time to research
no ladies?

[Joe K.]

Alex - think twice before you answer that. Your wife might be watching the forum

Alex,


no ladies?

[keitht]

Unfortunately for me (but fortunately for my marriage) only one of these pieces belongs to me. The rest were just compiled for the sake of this post.

According to the Omega Vintage Database, the 176.001/176.007 Seamasters was only rated to 60m (as was the 145.007 Chronostop KeithT mentioned). Even if they had a sufficient depth rating, they still would not have made this list, however, due to the lack of a rotating "0-60" bezel. I know, I'm a cruel taskmaster.

Seems to be some confusion here then....the Casebacks on some of these models....and in particular the 145.007 have 120m stamped on them.
And my example was pressure tested to this rating at its recent STS service.

Perhaps a generic caseback, or is the database wrong....wouldn't be the first time.....

Regards Keith