WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok, guys, here we go again. I'm still looking for an at least acceptable Omega 30T2 to complete my collection of dressy Omegas. I already own three automatic pieces, equipped with calibers 30.10RA PC, 505 and 1010. It's time to add a hand-wound guy to my set.

I found these ones below, offered for interesting prices. Would you mind, gentlemen?

1946 ref. 2505-1: This one's movement could definitely benefit from some cleaning. I suspect the minute and hour hands are replacements - their color doesn't match the seconds hand color (actually, I'm not sure if they should). Some OVD research for reference 2505 informed me this model should be equipped with cal. 265/266. Furthermore, dial in OVD's image doesn't match this one.

om130t2_1.jpg om130t2_2.jpg om130t2_3.jpg om130t2_4.jpg


1938 ref. 2490-3:
This guy is a conundrum to me. Movement looks like 30T2, which was introduced in 1939 AFAIK, but serial indicates 1938 as year of manufacturing. Dial and hands seem really well preserved, if they're really original. I wasn't able to find this reference nor in OVD, neither anywhere else. What say you?

om230t2_1.jpg om230t2_2.jpg om230t2_3.jpg om230t2_4.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,549 Posts

1938 ref. 2490-3:
This guy is a conundrum to me. Movement looks like 30T2, which was introduced in 1939 AFAIK, but serial indicates 1938 as year of manufacturing. Dial and hands seem really well preserved, if they're really original. I wasn't able to find this reference nor in OVD, neither anywhere else. What say you?

View attachment 12814553 View attachment 12814555 View attachment 12814557 View attachment 12814559
This one is a cal 23.4SC, the watch is of the Medicus style, with the medical type chapter track to allow a doctor to count the pulse. I can't recall if the reference number is actually a Medicus - there is a certain amount of confusion about the range and the number of models which were actually "Medicus." It's far smaller than often alleged (according to Yann over on the Omega Forum, who kind know everything there is to know about the subject…). But look up Mediucs and you'll see the style, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
In case of specimen no.1, the hands look too short, and of a style later than the watch itself (and aren't consistent with the dial design...).

Concerning specimen no.2- the dial, hands and movement are certainly ones of a Medicus, maybe a Naiad, but the case - IMO - stinks.

All Medicus and Naiad (well, this one is obviously not a Naiad, they had a rather distinctive case design with the edge of the back sticking out beyond the flanks) references were within the 20XX-21XX reference number range (well, not counting the earlier three-digit 6XX references). Besides, a watch from the late 1930s would have had a case serial, not a reference number, engraved on the back!

The calibre 23.4 in all its versions remained in production well into the 1950s (in 1949 the sub-second version number changed to 220, sweep second - 230), so there's no shortage of cases to fit this movement.

The OVD has no record of the reference 2490, which is nothing odd. But Uncle Google is of no help either, which has me worried.
IMO, it could have been cobbled together from a salvaged movement/dial/hands combo and a spare case fitting the movement.

The bad condition of the movement would also put me off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,549 Posts
mkws makes good points. But be that as they may, it is a cal 23.4SC and they are often referred to as Medicus, mainly because of the then-revolutionary (if you worked in the Omega marketing department) sweep second hand and chapter ring, which Omega used as marketing devices to access a prosperous community - doctors.

Naiad watches used the same calibre, but they were intended to be relatively early "waterproof" watches, hence the nautical name. They look broadly similar to this, but had a different function, obviously.

So this 2490 is broadly in the Medicus camp; as I said, Yann has done a lot of research on it and concluded that only CK651 (square, with various dial styles), a super rare gold one (reference eludes me) and a round one (once again, apologies no reference number remembered) - the other watches in this style, according to him, as in the style of, but were never actually sold as Medicus. A small point, but all the same. I have a CK651, a CK605 (whose dial and hands this resembles) and a CK2175. I had a Naiad CK2111 (whose case was visually a little like this one, but featured a screw-in back).

As to mkws' comments about the case shape, I don't understand the point. I have around 4 Omegas of this period with 23.4SC movements and all the cases are pretty standard configurations, press in backs. All have style numbers that begin in CK. All have lollypop sweep second hands, as does this one. I suspect this dial, but frankly, it does look rather convincing. It may be a factory re-dial; the OVD is totally hopeless in accuracy terms on this range - for example they list some 9 models as Medicus and that's certainly inaccurate. And there were at least 6 dial variations on the CK651 and I have an extensive archive detailing them; yet the OVD doesn't reflect this.

Depending on price, I might be interested, if I were Elvis. But it will need to be cleaned, by the looks of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
As to mkws' comments about the case shape, I don't understand the point. I have around 4 Omegas of this period with 23.4SC movements and all the cases are pretty standard configurations, press in backs. All have style numbers that begin in CK. All have lollypop sweep second hands, as does this one. I suspect this dial, but frankly, it does look rather convincing. It may be a factory re-dial; the OVD is totally hopeless in accuracy terms on this range - for example they list some 9 models as Medicus and that's certainly inaccurate. And there were at least 6 dial variations on the CK651 and I have an extensive archive detailing them; yet the OVD doesn't reflect this.
What comments about the case shape? The only (big) problem that I have with this watch, is that the case markings are following a pattern incorrect for the year of production indicated by the movement serial.

The point is that while 1930s models obviously did have a reference number assigned to them, it wasn't put on the case back. The phasing out of case serials in favour of reference number only started in the early 1940s (circa 1942-1943) and the last cases with serials were produced circa 1947-1948.
This one has a reference number on the back, although in the period pointed to by the movement serial, it shouldn't.
I'm not putting too much trust in the OVD, as it is indeed hopelessly inaccurate. However, most references of the 24XX range came about circa 1943, which is also much later than the movement in this watch. In conclusion, the case appears to have been produced way later than the movement, which exceeds the usual gap between the movement and case.

The reference 2940, while unsurprisingly not documented in the OVD, doesn't seem to be documented anywhere else either. That said, running a basic check on this one is pretty much impossible. It doesn't fit the norms for the Omega marking patterns of the 1930s, and there isn't even a single resource to legitimize this oddity. That said, IMO it could be a franken, or at least have an incorrect replacement back, which sucks all the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Hi there,

both affect my stomach. No mind to explain why, but did you ever consider what can be expected from a reputable brand?

Regards, Roland Ranfft
Some brazilian politicians turn my stomach upside down. Famine, extreme poverty and war in african countries do so as well. As does Roberto Alagna trying to sing Verdi's Otello. But not a watch. Man, it's only a watch...

Besides, I'd say I'm fully aware of what is to be expected from a reputable brand, since I do own some respectable specimens made by respectable watchmakers (if you doubt that, I invite you to take a look at my album). The specimens I showed here are simply cases of mistreated watches, neglected by former owners and/or affected by the rigours of time. Some care could at least turn them into wearable pieces again. They're still good watches from reputable brands.

We all respect your work and your fine observations, Roland, but this time you certainly overreacted and were unnecessarily aggressive. This renders, to me, your remarks rather pointless.

Now, back to the watches. mkws, I agree that, with cal. 23.4 specimen, something doesn't match. But, IMO, it seems that it's only one of those situations in which the original caseback is lost at some point. The rest of the case, the dial and the hands do resemble those of original specimens - take a look at this one, offered for sale right here in WUS, and at the figures in old ads.

Obviously, being aware of these details, I'd negotiate the price with the seller and, if I actually purchased it, it would go straight to my watchmaker, for cleaning and adjusting. All in all, it strikes me as a beautiful piece, even if a flawed one, and kind of unusual, if compared with the more famed 30T2. I'm still considering it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,037 Posts
Hi Elvis,

Besides, I'd say I'm fully aware of what is to be expected from a reputable brand
Really?? A not fitting movement ring with senseless gaps from the junk box like in the first watch isn't even met in the cheapest pin-lever. And a style mix between 30s (hands), 40s (dial), and 50s (case) combined in the second watch, and a crisp dial on a movement cadaver is at least a bit suspicious.

I don't claim to have reasonable knowledge about Omega models and referensce numbers, but I can rely on my stomach, and this would keep me away from such botch.

Fortunately I need not politely comment such watches. My watch activities are just a hobby, and I don't mind if people avoid my site because they feel offended by political incorrect but honest comments.

Regards, Roland Ranfft
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Hi Elvis,


Really?? A not fitting movement ring with senseless gaps from the junk box like in the first watch isn't even met in the cheapest pin-lever. And a style mix between 30s (hands), 40s (dial), and 50s (case) combined in the second watch, and a crisp dial on a movement cadaver is at least a bit suspicious.

I don't claim to have reasonable knowledge about Omega models and referensce numbers, but I can rely on my stomach, and this would keep me away from such botch.

Fortunately I need not politely comment such watches. My watch activities are just a hobby, and I don't mind if people avoid my site because they feel offended by political incorrect but honest comments.

Regards, Roland Ranfft

My dear chap, none here doubts your knowledge when it comes to watches. And none is really talking about political correctness here, as you imply. What is beyond debate is that, honest and technically correct as your comments may be, their tone is rude and ill-tempered. Why don't you just chill out, man?? Once again, I respect you. No need for any grudge here! I'm constantly learning from your excellent website and from your participation here. Just don't expect to patronize me and have me silent about it. I suffer that from none.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,588 Posts
I'm not sure exactly what information you are looking for, but for what it's worth, I don't really like either of these watches. They both look like frankens (or if you don't like that word, at least they have a lot of mismatched parts), and they both have condition issues that would be unacceptable to me. However, I don't know the prices, and everyone has a different comfort level for these things. But you did ask an open ended question when you said "Would you mind, gentlemen?", so that's my subjective opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Hello, Dan. Whenever I present you some piece, with a description and pictures, it is always in search of advice and opinions about the originality and general condition of said piece. After all, this is the reason I joined WUS: to learn from knowledgeable horology enthusiasts and to share my passion for vintage watches.

And I'm prepared to welcome any remarks anyone here makes, as long as they observe some basic civility and etiquette rules. We're gentlemen here: a tiny fraction of humanity interested in such a subtle and fine art as is horology. No room for heated debates or ill manners, since it should be no more than a hobby.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
Now, back to the watches. mkws, I agree that, with cal. 23.4 specimen, something doesn't match. But, IMO, it seems that it's only one of those situations in which the original caseback is lost at some point. The rest of the case, the dial and the hands do resemble those of original specimens - take a look at this one, offered for sale right here in WUS, and at the figures in old ads.
IMO, the case style, the dial and the hands do match, and all of them combined certainly match the ones found on Medicus and Naiad models, so on that I'll disagree with Roland. It's indeed the back that's the oddball here, as I've said before. It may be, that whatever the 2940 was, its back was identical to the one on whatever reference this exact watch is.

Also, the watch in the WUS listing is not strictly a Medicus - it's a Naiad. The case back design with the distinctive, fat and rounded edges protruding beyond the flanks indicates a waterproof case with a hermetic crown (with a cork gasket), and a gasket-equipped press-in back (a gasketed, waterproof press-in, that was something​ in the 1930s...).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,037 Posts
Hi mkws,

...so on that I'll disagree with Roland.
But I agree with you. Most waterproof cases of the 30s and 40s anticipated the more chunky style of the 50s, just by technical requirements. But here we have no waterproof case, and I can't decide what is worse, a later case around an earlier (rotten) movement or a mismatching back on a contemporary bezel. I'd stay away from both, and I don't mind to be a non-gentlemen for this oppinion.

Regards, Roland Ranfft
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,549 Posts
Well, this all seems to have gone sideways a bit!

First of all, to go back to mkws's query about what I'd meant about not understanding what he'd meant about the cases (phew!), it was this "All Medicus and Naiad (well, this one is obviously not a Naiad, they had a rather distinctive case design with the edge of the back sticking out beyond the flanks..." that I didn't get. Vintage Naiad's have screw-in backs and so I was/am a bit puzzled about that. Mine fitted very conventionally with no overhang and was shown as such on the OVD.

naiad.jpg

But attached are two pictures; the one with the tan strap is a Naiad CK2111. The other is? I don't know. A watch with a curiously overhanging back, but not something I'm familiar with. Live and learn perhaps. Sadly, the OVD is hopeless on the search facility now and I can't even find a listing for Naiad in it now.

But I agree with mkws: I am pretty certain that the back comes from another case. Apart from that, the watch has the look of the Medicus series about it. The movement regulator being so for over to one side suggests pretty firmly that the movement needs an overhaul. We've all seen that before and it will probably clean up okay.

As to Roland's comments about the movement fitting poorly, well, I don't see that on the cal 23.4SC pictures. The movement ring/spacer and rather dirty screws look fairly typical to me.

The dial continues to look oddly good to me, perhaps too good, but all the same, the style and printing of it are generally consistent of the period. And who of us here knows whether it was serviced by an Omega SA affiliate or some such thing, back in the day and reprinted locally, or produced for the local market? There are plenty of vintage watches unique to US market, for example. Just as there are plenty of Dennison cased British models. The point? We labour under new marketing and brand thinking - super consistent standards - but Omega (et all) weren't always so very accurate in Ye Olde Days. The hands are correct. The movement is a typical enough 23.4SC. As the reference number doesn't start with "CK," I doubt that the back belongs to the case. But a look thought A Journey Through Time may solve the mystery as to what the 2490 reference number belongs to.

Elvis is in a challenging market for vintage watches and I suspect that, given the naughtiness of some South American watch sellers, this isn't a particularly evil watch. But if this were offered for sale in Europe or the USA, one would expect a higher standard of adherence to the original. The back model number/serial number not withstanding, this might be a perfectly appealing watch in life; hard to say from the pictures here. But after service, it might be a watch to wear, rather than a pristine collector's item. We forget that some aren't so precious about "authenticity" as others here are.

 

Attachments

1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top