Vintage Omega Cosmic 166.0196

A
Posts
9
Likes
3
Hello everyone,

I recently purchased this Omega Seamaster Cosmic 166.0196 online. I like the size (36.5mm), grey sunburst dial, angular design and Chatelain bracelet. This watch also comes with a screw down crown - something which doesn't seem to be the case for all watches with this reference.
20240901_195856.jpg

Now to what disturbs me. It was listed as having the Omega caliber 1022, but when I opened it to check, it is clearly the 1020 movement (please see pictures). I know that the difference is the number of jewels and that this is due to export and tax rules. I have never seen (by searching online) this reference having the 1020 or 1010 (for the date only version).
20240901_192543.jpg
20240901_201200.jpg
20240901_192532.jpg

Does this indicate that the original movement was swapped out for another movement?

In this circle which contains the Omega logo, I sometimes see "39", "40" and here it is "41". What does these numbers mean?

Thank you for reading.
 
sheepdoll
Posts
2,272
Likes
3,649
Those are the first two digits of the serial. Sometimes used to estimate the manufacturing date of the movement.

main253.png

This would put the manufacturing between 1975 and 1978. Costs were being cut and there was a lot of overproduction.

Hard to tell from the lighting in the photographs, the maker plate could have been swapped as it looks to reflect color different than the surrounding plates.

Superficially it looks to be in decent shape.

If you like it, that is what really matters.
 
A
Posts
9
Likes
3
Thank you very much for your valuable information, sheepdoll. I looked for difference in the aging of the copper plating under good lighting, but couldn't see anything obvious. I like the watch very much, but the enjoyment will be significantly diminished if the original 1022 movement was swapped out for a 1020. It may not be rational, but that's my human brain.
 
sheepdoll
Posts
2,272
Likes
3,649
If it helps here is a similar ref on the omega vintage website. What uses a 1020/1022. A lot of these 1970s era watches used the same case for different models I used the second ref number and this came close. The first digit three means gents bracelet watch.
https://www.omegawatches.com/watch-omega-seamaster-omega-st-366-0848

A web search on 366 0837 return a number of day/date examples similar to yours. Day/dates are not as common a simple date watches with the refs being outliers. There is also the language of the day wheel to consider.
 
sheepdoll
Posts
2,272
Likes
3,649
Here is a screen shot of the archive of the old ranfft page for this caliber group. If it helps make you feel more comfortable. As you noted the difference is only the number of jewels. The case is designed for both styles why there are two reference numbers stamped in it.
Screen Shot 2024-09-01 at 3.29.24 PM.png
 
A
Posts
9
Likes
3
Thank you again sheepdoll for your knowledge and time. I guess it could be as simple as that the watch I own was meant for export (to the US?), and thus was fitted with the 1020 due to higher jewel count meaning higher import tax. The issue I have is that I've never seen this reference (or any of the related integrated watches with Chatelaine bracelet) with the lesser jeweled versions this caliber series.

I've tried to do my own research before bothering this forum. The only trustworthy information I've found is this for the date-only version:

https://www.omegawatches.com/watch-omega-seamaster-cosmic-st-366-0838
http://www.old-omegas.com/pics/catde76/p1415.jpg

I've actually never seen the day-date from Omega sources, but this seems legit:

Vintage masters

Even got the tag (see some of the last pictures). Slightly different version - hands, for example, are different. 1022 caliber.

Alas, I did not find any solace in the information you provided 😔
 
X350 XJR
Posts
13,290
Likes
31,394
I think you're making way to much out of this, it's not like the movement is from a completely different family.

When researching obscure references it's not always possible to find information to prove or disprove the possibility of something (welcome to the world of Omega).

Why are you smashing your head against the wall over a few jewels?
 
A
Posts
9
Likes
3
You are correct, X350 XJR, and I agree wholeheartedly. Alas, at the same time, my brain chemistry is what it is, and I would just really like to know. I've sent an e-mail to Omega, actually I did that before starting this thread, asking if they ever sold the 166.0196 with the caliber 1020. I hope to get a response.
 
sheepdoll
Posts
2,272
Likes
3,649
It is not a 166.0196 it is a 366.0837.

Helps when you use the correct reference number. The integrated bracelet is the tell. 166 would not have an integrated bracelet.
The omega website is clear, these were shipped with either or. You can click on the either or in the search box on 1020/1022 on the omega vintage page. 1970s watches, different rules than modern watches. Back projecting the 21s century values on the 20th is no different than back projecting it with 13 century values.

Case reference table.jpeg
 
A
Posts
9
Likes
3
Good input. I see that on the tag from the VintageMaster's photo that the tag only says 366.0837.

Original tag

However, as I showed in the picture showing the inside the caseback further up, both "ST 366.0837" and "166.0196" are shown. I though these were used interchangeably - though I never understood why there would be two. I still don't. I'm no expert, obviously, so I might be slow to get important points.
Edited:
 
KaiseRRuby
Posts
89
Likes
330
Hello,

I had the same watch and sold it to Vintage Masters. Don't know for sure but its possible Vintage Masters used some mine as a donor for their current offer, because mine had the grey'ish dial:

IMG_20240418_150523.jpg

I put lots and lots of work in restoring it, the bracelet is a pain to fix. This is the story of mine. It also contained a 1020 movement.
48c75ecf-d6f3-4efa-a48a-cffaea87e8f7.jpg

I sold it a couple of months ago. The bracelet was hard for me to fit. It was either to loose or to tight.

Have fun with yours, its a beautifull watch!
 
A
Posts
9
Likes
3
Hi KaiseRRuby,

Thank you very much for your post. I've been searching for this watch for some time, and a few months ago, I found your watch on sale on the horlogeforum.nl site, if I'm not mistaken. It didn't take long before it was sold, and the page on said forum was swiftly taken down (at least I couldn't access it any longer).

So I missed it and was sad. A relatively short time after that, I saw it again at Catawiki, but then I had already ordered the one I currently own.

41-283930 (Your serialnumber).
41-283944 (Mine).

And both are equipped with the 1020 and not the 1022! That, finally, gives me some peace of mind :)
Edited:
 
KaiseRRuby
Posts
89
Likes
330
A Aureliuz
Hi KaiseRRuby,

Thank you very much for your post. I've been searching for this watch for some time, and a few months ago, I found your watch on sale on the horlogeforum.nl site, if I'm not mistaken. It didn't take long before it was sold, and the page on said forum was swiftly taken down (at least I couldn't access it any longer).

So I missed it and was sad. A relatively short time after that, I saw it again at Catawiki, but then I had already ordered the one I currently own.

41-283930 (Your serialnumber).
41-283944 (Mine).

And both are equipped with the 1020 and not the 1022! That, finally, gives me some peace of mind :)

Good to hear! I hope you enjoy the watch. It is a real stunner. Got a lot of compliments when wearing it.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...