Omega from 1938/1939 - how original?

watchmann44232
Posts
43
Likes
243
Hello All, I came across this Omega that seems to be from 1938/1939 period with Omega 23.4 SC(?) movement. I'm planning to drive over to the seller on Sat to check it out. But before doing so, I wanted to ask Your opinion regarding it - how legit is this specimen? (sorry about the poor pictures). It looks pretty legit to me, but to which extent, I'm not sure (I tried to look online, but only thing I am pretty confident is that dials (looking) like pictured existed around that time period, and that movement appears to be 23.4 SC). Any help highly appreciated.

omegad1.webp omegad2.webp omegad3.webp omegam1.webp omegam2.webp omegam3.webp


(as a side note, I have no watches older than 1950s, so this would be a bit of a new frontier for me...)
Edited:
 
Dan S
Posts
23,123
Likes
51,624
Just based on a quick glance, it looks nice. Pretty small I assume.
 
mac_omega
Posts
3,520
Likes
7,538
Looks good but be aware that this is a tiny watch for men - rather suitable for your better half 😉
 
watchmann44232
Posts
43
Likes
243
I recently got her 30mm Tissot Rockwatch R150. Somehow I'm suspecting this one wouldn't make the cut though. 😅
 
watchmann44232
Posts
43
Likes
243
So now I am antique watch owner...didn't see this one coming. Here are some quick notes and photos. Appreciate any insights/corrections.

Some observations: 16mm lugs (edit; though it was 15mm), movement serial 8954304: 1938/1939?, seconds hand color seems slightly off - probably changed at some point, dial has some fading between 1-2. Omega Ref. Ck 2064 I suspect, number on caseback (9383530) I think has been 'scratched' (over the old one?) to keep it legible(?), crown changed (I assume, and is different than in CK2064 drawing). One of the lugs has I 40 (or 140) engraved, which seems to match the I 40 (?) inside the caseback. Dial seems good to me, but...

With no shock protection in 23.4 SC (correct?), I suppose I better wear this one carefully!

Unfortunately it came with a very few details of its past life.
omega01.webp omega02.webp omega06.webp omega07.webp omega03.webp omega04.webp omega05.webp
Edited:
 
watchmann44232
Posts
43
Likes
243
And I should add that it feels pretty incredible to have almost a 90 year old watch that's just ticking along!
 
Larry S
Posts
13,454
Likes
52,941
Very nice … bet it wears bigger than its diameter. Get it serviced
 
mac_omega
Posts
3,520
Likes
7,538
"snow flakes" on a black dial is a perfect proof that it is original, and its a 2 layer galvanic execution.
The crown could be original...
 
watchmann44232
Posts
43
Likes
243
Thank You everyone! I'll post a wrist shot once I get it back from the service. Thankfully I have a small wrist so it looks surprisingly proportional when worn.

@mac_omega -- regarding crown, I was digging into some of the old threads at OF and same kind of crown does appears on a couple of different watches. I'd say at minimum it's not a random replacement but something that was used back in a day.
 
Tire-comedon
Posts
1,326
Likes
3,677
cqing cqing
IMG_20250606_224621.webp
i have a similar one.
Very beautiful, but not exactly, the same model, your has a small second so it's not a 23.4 SC inside.
Probably also not a 2064. Could you post a picture of the back?
 
Tire-comedon
Posts
1,326
Likes
3,677
watchmann44232 watchmann44232
So now I am antique watch owner...didn't see this one coming. Here are some quick notes and photos. Appreciate any insights/corrections.

Some observations: 16mm lugs (edit; though it was 15mm), movement serial 8954304: 1938/1939?, seconds hand color seems slightly off - probably changed at some point, dial has some fading between 1-2. Omega Ref. Ck 2064 I suspect, number on caseback (9383530) I think has been 'scratched' (over the old one?) to keep it legible(?), crown changed (I assume, and is different than in CK2064 drawing). One of the lugs has I 40 (or 140) engraved, which seems to match the I 40 (?) inside the caseback. Dial seems good to me, but...

With no shock protection in 23.4 SC (correct?), I suppose I better wear this one carefully!

Unfortunately it came with a very few details of its past life.
omega01.webp omega02.webp omega06.webp omega07.webp omega03.webp omega04.webp omega05.webp
I confirm the 2064 - Naiad first generation - identification. Weldone! Not an easy watch to find with a black dial and in this condition.
One of mine (with wrong crown) says hello :
1763589336053.webp

A period catalog page (in French I'm afraid) :
1763589448571.webp

And a nice little period promotional folder (in Swedish, I'm afraid) :
1763589536531.webp 1763589555892.webp


The Naiad was the first waterproof wristwatch produced by Omega, and they were probably a little bit optimistic in their advertising (the ad says now you can keep it on your wrist... I wouldn't recommend that for those activities ):
1763589900465.webp 1763589983667.webp
.
 
UncleBuck
Posts
3,544
Likes
8,103
Great to see you, Yann!
(The best authority on pre-WWII in the world, in my book!)
 
watchmann44232
Posts
43
Likes
243
Thank You @Tire-comedon and very much Appreciated!

Below better photos of the movement and inside of the caseback from the watchmaker. The I 40 turns out to be 140 which matches the number on the lugs. All the photos that I've found online of similar watches seem to have different number (and one of the brochures above in the thread has 6 inside the caseback). Would it be correct to assume that it's a case/caseback 'serial' and indeed unique identifier for the watch?

It appears that the friction spring for the seconds pinion is broken and a piece of metal has been there to fill the need (now that I know where to look, it's sort of visible from the original photo too). My watchmaker said that he is trying to see if he can source it from his network, and if not, he'll fabricate one. That said, I searched online and incredibly it appears that Perrin Supply in Canada would have one. I'll go and talk with my watchmaker next week about this, but if there is even a remote chance that this part would work, I am thinking I will just order it.

IMG_1269.webp IMG_1270.webp
Edited:
 
Dan S
Posts
23,123
Likes
51,624
The matching numbers were simply a way to track which case-back went with which case. Obviously three digits is not enough for a unique identifier, but it's good enough to avoid confusion in most circumstances, e.g. a watchmaker servicing several watches at the same time.

This was common at one time with several manufacturers, although it's hard to imagine that a given watchmaker would have enough of the same reference on their bench at the same time to lead to confusion ... except for military watches being serviced en masse.
 
mac_omega
Posts
3,520
Likes
7,538
Dan S Dan S
The matching numbers were simply a way to track which case-back went with which case. Obviously three digits is not enough for a unique identifier, but it's good enough to avoid confusion in most circumstances, e.g. a watchmaker servicing several watches at the same time.

This was common at one time with several manufacturers, although it's hard to imagine that a given watchmaker would have enough of the same reference on their bench at the same time to lead to confusion ... except for military watches being serviced en masse.
IMO these numbers were needed during the production process to pair the caseback with the upper part of the case as these parts were finished seperately. Quality in machining was not as high as in our days with CAD turning etc - hence the casebacks were not interchangeable due to too wide tolerances in production. I have experienced this with the screw down models 2410 and 2254. You hardly can mix casebacks up because they mostly only fit on the correct case with the corresponding number.
Edited:
 
3 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...