Is this a redial? Omega Seamaster 14k 105.004

lucreative
Posts
317
Likes
528
Hey OF members. I feel like a newbie for asking this, but I still have a hard time discerning, especially since it's a trusted seller. The seller says it's not a redial.

But is this Omega Seamaster 321 14k a redial? The font looks good, but really thick, and for this model I see a "T Swiss T", but many examples I don't see this. It's also a 34mm (edit seller says it's 35.5mm).

IMG_1677.webp
Edited:
 
apsm100
Posts
1,152
Likes
4,936
Do you have any more photos? I think the low resolution/compression of the image is making the print look thicker.

My gut says it's fine though.
 
jimmyjay
Posts
200
Likes
685
I think it’s a refinished dial. The minute track looks wonky, especially at 6 o’clock.
 
M
Posts
355
Likes
242
Better photos would definitely help, but going by what is available, I do not believe this to be a redial. The 6 o'clock minute track could just be distortion from the crystal. From what I can see this is mostly likely the relatively scarce ref 105.001 (could be 105.004 too, but I don't seem to recollect having seen many of those in 14K Au) and that makes this one coeval as the Ed White Speedy reference 105.003. Just some trivia.
 
lucreative
Posts
317
Likes
528
He didn't have better dial pics for now, but he sent me pictures of the case back. He also said he was mistaken and the case is actually 35.5mm without crown. I made a deal to buy it "as is" since it's a 321 and 14k solid gold case. Will update with better pics when I take them myself. He's the one that sold me the Omega Racend Timer at a great price so I didn't want to push too hard.

IMG_1690.webp IMG_1691.webp
 
lucreative
Posts
317
Likes
528
The seller sent this pic of the dial to me this morning. Any red flags?

IMG_1694.webp
 
lucreative
Posts
317
Likes
528
Davidt Davidt
Dial looks original to me
Actually, what sticks out to me from the sellers most recent picture to me is the sharpness of the 14k case. It'll hopefully be worth it just for that.
 
M
Posts
355
Likes
242
lucreative lucreative
The seller sent this pic of the dial to me this morning. Any red flags?

IMG_1694.webp
The dial is good, but the hour and minute hands are wrong IMHO. So I would not call this a untouched barn find as the H&M hands are from a much later reference or installed during previous service. Nonetheless the case being very sharp is a big plus.
 
lucreative
Posts
317
Likes
528
Moment of truth. The watch arrived today and I found out it's a 105.004 in 14k per case back. Movement is beautiful and case seems sharp. How does the dial look and hands? It's a later 1965 watch per serial number lookup.

20251118_134148.webp 20251118_134229.webp 20251118_134224.webp 20251118_134238.webp 20251118_134349.webp 20251118_141242.webp 20251118_141458.webp
 
lucreative
Posts
317
Likes
528
What really got me was the sharp lugs. So hard to take a good pic to show them, but I will post a WRUW tomorrow.

20251118_180257.webp 20251118_180406.webp
 
M
Posts
355
Likes
242
lucreative lucreative
Moment of truth. The watch arrived today and I found out it's a 105.004 in 14k per case back. Movement is beautiful and case seems sharp. How does the dial look and hands? It's a later 1965 watch per serial number lookup.

20251118_134148.webp 20251118_134229.webp 20251118_134224.webp 20251118_134238.webp 20251118_134349.webp 20251118_141242.webp 20251118_141458.webp
Beautiful! And I stand corrected wrt to the ref #. The caseback lack of bevel threw me in the 105.001 camp, but TIL something. Congrats on a great find.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...