Well done Tony, about time somebody did this! Couple notes I’d add: most of the 4 digits are SnapBack cases, and became 5 digits when Omega made them into screwbacks, thus improving WR specs. There’s conjecture on which version of “O” in “Omega” font is correct (oval or regular circle), I’m on the side of regular circle being original, as their print typically is more accurate with serifs. Lastly, many black dials are redials or fakes, so caveat emptor.
Nice write up Tony. I too prefer these Seamasters to the speedies! I am in love with the 145.005-67 black dial, a very elusive watch… The CK 29xx are nice too, particularly the beefier lugs references with the patinated dials… evocative watches!
Thanks for this Tony! A much needed one to have better tracking on its offerings with many variations.
The 105.005 actually not a totally straight lugs like the 145.005 does, on the outer part of the lugs it has a little bevel which most of the time already become roundish (from overpolishing i guess?). Also one interesting about the dial variants across references is the typography used, i found that some got ‘open’ 9 and 6, some don’t, some got totally different typeface, etc. not sure which one is the correct ones though, but would be interesting to be explored!
good point—and yes, these deserve a more complete study. I couldn't even find a place that listed all the references in one place (the Omega website has some reference material, but is mostly lacking), so I hope it inspires someone to dig deeper :)
Sort of a related question. Do you have a view on the legibility of the FOIS? The consensus seems to be it’s difficult in certain lighting conditions to clearly see the minute and seconds sub dial hands. Thanks!
I have the first gen. The hands are what make it tricky. If you just take a quick second it’s fine. However if you want something that is a “no brainer” then it can be hard. It’s as hard as a dial with do markers (I have a Cartier Santos ghosts dial and find it about the same as that when telling time- takes a quick second).
honestly i'm not sure i've seen one outside the boutique a few times, and it doesn't feel fair to judge a watch based on the horrors that are boutique lighting!
This is 🔥 I’ve always loved looking at these but never known what was what or which would be best on the wrist. Biggest win would be a rundown of precise specs from real examples but they’re so few and far between you could spend all of 2026 hunting down a good one from each reference to photograph on wrist. Alpha hands variants definitely win best of the bunch though.
Well done Tony, about time somebody did this! Couple notes I’d add: most of the 4 digits are SnapBack cases, and became 5 digits when Omega made them into screwbacks, thus improving WR specs. There’s conjecture on which version of “O” in “Omega” font is correct (oval or regular circle), I’m on the side of regular circle being original, as their print typically is more accurate with serifs. Lastly, many black dials are redials or fakes, so caveat emptor.
Would also love to know more about the supposed Mexican Olympics reverse panda! 👀
Plenty written over at OmegaForums:
https://omegaforums.net/threads/seamaster-reverse-panda-how-one-of-the-rarest-omega-watches-stayed-under-the-radar-until-now.154815/
I assumed this with the black dials…a lot of the ones I was coming across just looked ‘off’
Nice write up Tony. I too prefer these Seamasters to the speedies! I am in love with the 145.005-67 black dial, a very elusive watch… The CK 29xx are nice too, particularly the beefier lugs references with the patinated dials… evocative watches!
yes they evoke something in me!!
Thanks for this Tony! A much needed one to have better tracking on its offerings with many variations.
The 105.005 actually not a totally straight lugs like the 145.005 does, on the outer part of the lugs it has a little bevel which most of the time already become roundish (from overpolishing i guess?). Also one interesting about the dial variants across references is the typography used, i found that some got ‘open’ 9 and 6, some don’t, some got totally different typeface, etc. not sure which one is the correct ones though, but would be interesting to be explored!
good point—and yes, these deserve a more complete study. I couldn't even find a place that listed all the references in one place (the Omega website has some reference material, but is mostly lacking), so I hope it inspires someone to dig deeper :)
Thanks a lot for this great guide to Vintage 321 Seamasters! Would the ref. 145.006 Seamaster also be considered? It has a 321 inside.
Great article!
Damn I missed your footnote on this ref.......sorry!
🫶🫶
Sort of a related question. Do you have a view on the legibility of the FOIS? The consensus seems to be it’s difficult in certain lighting conditions to clearly see the minute and seconds sub dial hands. Thanks!
I have the first gen. The hands are what make it tricky. If you just take a quick second it’s fine. However if you want something that is a “no brainer” then it can be hard. It’s as hard as a dial with do markers (I have a Cartier Santos ghosts dial and find it about the same as that when telling time- takes a quick second).
Thank you for the response!
honestly i'm not sure i've seen one outside the boutique a few times, and it doesn't feel fair to judge a watch based on the horrors that are boutique lighting!
True. I am heading to a TAG dealer this week to check out the new 41mms chronographs and will keep that in mind!
This is 🔥 I’ve always loved looking at these but never known what was what or which would be best on the wrist. Biggest win would be a rundown of precise specs from real examples but they’re so few and far between you could spend all of 2026 hunting down a good one from each reference to photograph on wrist. Alpha hands variants definitely win best of the bunch though.
Reverse panda and gold 2884 are straight fire
Tony- Don't forget tge 145.006. Has a C case with 321 movement at around 36mm
thanks, intentionally omitted - mentioned in a footnote!
Are these mostly radium lume? Probably, right?
mostly radium, you'll see some tritium towards the last few references (note the "T Swiss" signatures below 6 o'clock)
your dad was right!