Omega

I have a lovely 1950 18kt gold Tresor with a cal 283:-

I was browsing the other day and came across this identical one from 1951 also with a cal 283:-

I was intrigued not only because it is virtually identical to mine but also because it is supposedly a 'chronometer'.  I was unaware that the cal 283 was ever produced as a chronometer - I know its predecessor (the 30T2) was produced in chronometer form and I'd love one - but the 283??  I did question the sales person over this and he was insistent that it was genuine but I think this was just him taking it at face value. 

I'm not thinking of buying it but perhaps you experts could put me right - it will all go in my knowledge bank for future use.

Cheers

Andrew

 

 

...obviously refers to a normal cal. 283 watch with a dial which does not belong.
May I ask why you call them Tresors?

THanks
Franco

If you use the Omega Vintage database  62.73.172.171  and search on "Tresor" there will pop up 26 Omega Tresor models.

Best

Thomas

Hi Franco

Tresors (which, translated I believe means 'Treasure') were produced in mainly 18kt gold (although there was one model in 14kt and one model in Steel)  from the late 1940s to the early 1960s.  It was a model range much the same as Seamaster.  In the main, they used the manual 260/280 series, the automatic bumper movements and the 491/501 autos.  I believe they were intended as the "Poor Man's" gold watch - although why is beyond me as they are a solid gold and often quite a bit larger than the 34mm 'standard' of the age.

I believe there was a chronometer rated Tresor with a cal 351 bumper - but a 283 Chronometer - was there ever such a beast?

Cheers

Andrew

Never heard nor seen a 283 rated as a chronometer. It is a frankenwatch for me.

best regards

georges

 

..... was rated chronometer - Bill Sohne showed one 283 to me with swan neck regulation and Omega documentation regarding chronometer rating.  Hopefully he will chime in and show it again.   Apart from that, no 283 was rated chronometre (although on eb*y often sellers use the term randomly).

Yes, as I said above I think that dial does not belong to the watch.

BWs
Franco

omega.watchprosite.com

and it would seem that there are chronometer 283s BUT this Tresor in question is 1950/51 with a 12.4 million serial number - Bill's examples I think were much later.  Also, it is not an Omega case - it is a Dennison so there is no Omega case ref to look up.  Unfortunately, I have no movement pics

Cheers

Andrew

Hello

To the question:

1- Is this "tresor" with mov. 283 and Dennison case really a chronometer like the dial says ?

I would say :   "No, it is just the dial stuck to this watch,  a dial taken perhaps from a 351 or something else.

To the question:

2- was any 283 ever chronometer grade

I would say:  yes, but VERY rarely (see Bill's watch)

Best wishes
Franco

As far as I remember I have read about 283 chronometer rated movements but I do not recall the source.

I remember quite well the fact as I have a watch with chronometer case and a 283 movement inside -

so I thought of requesting an extract from Omega to find out about the movement.

I must confess I forgot about...  and I cannot afford to request an extract for every Omega in the collection...

at this insane CHF conversion rates  

best

erich

Hi Andrew,

IMO "Tresor"  watches were not meant to be poor men´s watches - it is the opposite way - they were meant to be top of the line dress watches

besides the SM and Constellation line. Most of them have larger and very heavy duty cases, most executed in 18K, with de luxe dials.

kind regards

erich

 

Hi Erich.

  I think it's a "poor man gold watch" if you compare it to a "rich man gold watch" like a Constellation 18K solid, I remember Mike (MSN) wrote about it somewhere with the same idea that the Tresor's were for the......"Tresor was a lower priced gold watch line created to be sold in less affluent countries - its absence in the US ......"

 

       Here is the difference

     

  Tresor 18K  2687.

 

     

  Constellation 18K 2852 de Luxe dial

 

 

 

 

 

This message has been edited by hoipolloi on 2011-08-14 06:35:09

Hi Hoi,

I think you compare apples with pears...

You can not compare a handwound Tresor with a  "Constellation   de luxe " which was one of the top range watches

within the Constellation line only topped by the "Grand Luxe" version!

You should compare "regular" handwound gold watches with the Tresor line - then you will see (better feel) the difference.

(There were also few automatic models, all of them with well sculpted cases, sometimes with special shaped lugs.)

The Tresor watches (mostly) are  heavy with "hefty" 18K gold cases and beautiful de luxe dials with massive riveted 

gold hour markers and solid gold hands (not only plated).

They are the luxury watches besides the Constellation and SM lines  - why do you think are they called "Tresor"? (in French for "treasure")

IMO poor men´s watches are all the gold capped and goldplated (goldfilled) versions, e.g.  de Villes and the later Geneve watches (not to be mixed up with the EARLY ones which were a top line!).

When people could not afford an 18K solid gold watch they chose these much cheaper versions.

kind regards

Erich

Tresor is a high end gold omega for less affluent markets and the connie is a high end gold watch for the US/Western Europe.  If the tresor was sold in the US/Western Europe, it would be considered midrange at best - below constellation, seamaster and geneve.

I am not quite sure about Tresors being targeted at the less affluent areas of the world as they seem to have been marketed with Connies, SMs and Geneves (at least in Western Europe anyway – I don’t know about the US). 

 

I can understand that the Tresor would be marketed below a gold Constellation as the latter is superbly finished and always a chronometer but whether it is below a gold Seamaster or Geneve is debatable. 

 

As well as being fitted with non-chrono manual cals 260/280, Tresors were also fitted with chronometer rated 351s (the same as Seamasters) and 354s (the same as Constellations) and non-chronometer 491s/501s (the same a Seamasters) – I am not aware of a chronometer rated Geneve.  Tresor cases were virtually always a heavy, solid 18kt gold with clip-backs - the same as Connies and SMs of the time - so waterproofing would have been the equal of those. 

 

As far as I can see, the only difference between Tresors and Constellations, Seamasters and Geneves would be in the dial.

 

Cheers

 

Andrew

never came from the omega factory fitted with a chronometer tested/rated movement AFAIK.  They used the same movements that were chronometre rated in connies and seamasters such as the cal. 354 but they did not come in chronometre guise for the tresor.  The geneve did have one model that was chronometre rated - the cal. 601 which today is difficult to locate.
So of the 4 model lines here, the tresor was the only one that never came from omega as a chronometre.  It also featured simpler case styles than the three other model lines so at least in my opinion it would be considered below those other three model lines (of course we are talking apples to apples here - compare a gold tresor with a gold connie, seamaster and geneve).  And do this day, a seamaster chronometre and especially that lone geneve chronometre is (again at least to me) more desireable than any of the tresors.