Chronometre - signed crown or not?
My first post for a topic that I'm sure is going to be easy for you, but unknown territory for me. I've been offered a steel Chronometre, end of '40s. The watch itself is in a superb shape, but the crown is a plain, unsigned one.
Question: is it correct? Did Omega use to sign their crowns for that model at the time? And, if the crown has to be replaced, how difficult and expensive it is to find a vintage signed crown (same period)?
My understanding is that unsigned would be...
I don't think that the signed Omega crowns appeared until sometime in the 1950's.
I wish it were an easy question...
... I have an Omega Chronometre in steel, Ref. 2517. I believe the crown on mine to be original and it is signed. Unfortunately, I don't yet have a picture of the crown to show you. Omega has informed me that my watch was delivered to Italy in 1950.
My understanding is that some Chronometres had water resistant crowns. These would be signed. However, I don't believe all watches had these special crowns and those might not be signed.
The late 1940's and early 1950's was a time of great change for Omega. During this time Omega introduced signed crowns, crystals and special engraved rotors (for Chronometre models). These introductions seem to have been done on a running change basis. That is, the newer parts were introduced as they became avaliable, and not all at one time. Several different combinations of the same case reference may exist and all may be factory correct.
Hope this helps,
gatorcpa
Much appreciated
I have to thank everybody so far for each valuable contribution: it is much appreciated.
Seems that the unsigned crown is correct. I don't have any picture of the watch, unfortunately: it is (believe it or not!) an old fashion, direct, not web-generated negotiation between two private collectors. If it goes on and I purchase the watch, I will make sure to post some pictures.
Shelter