zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

: I wonder if anyone can tell me about the
: reputation (mechanically, in terms of
: durability, as well as ability to keep time)
: of the older seamasters. The one I am
: looking at buying is from c. 1960.

: Thanks and regards

This is me, responding to my earlier e-mail, above. First, thanks to all of you all who responded to my info request. It turns out that the watch in question was an early model diver's watch, which must have first been sold at least in the early 70's from what I know about the brand by now. It is a Seamaster 300 (not sure if the 300 referred to feet or meters back then -- anybody know?)

I bought the watch at a Sothebys auction here in London last month -- probably paid too much, at £600. I believe that the reason the Sothebys expert mis-classified the watch's date is because it still has its factory seal in tact and he wisely chose not to inspect the movement and look up serial numbers, etc.

The bezel has a stiff ratchet and is ringed with faded / darkened luminescent numerical calibration every 10 seconds. the dial, on the other hand is in immaculate condition, as are the crystal and the steel case. This, together with a new, smart looking diver's wristband, makes the watch a real stand-out (I admittedly had way too much trouble finding an omega steel bracelet for this and finally settled for a no-name rubber replacement for the shabby, ill-fitting leather band it was purchased with.) The watch gains about 10 - 12 seconds per day, which I can live with, although it makes it somewhat painful for the purposes of celestial navigation.

My intention in purchasing the watch was to find something durable, accurate, and water resistant for sailing. The Rolex sea dweller I looked at as an aletrnative was too expensive and "average" looking. This is a much more unique looking and cost-effective watch, even at the relatively high price I paid (there was another bidder who obviously had the same idea I had!).

Thanks again for the input and regards.