Can someone tell me what differentiates the pencil hand vrs sword hand variant of this watch. When he was alive, Marcello Pisani told me that the sword hand came very very late in the production of the watch. Others have said it was used for military .... i don't think the latter is correct. I am just curious as to other opinion on the use of different style hands.

Any information is much appreciated.

B

 

quick google search you will find all the info you require on the difference . Happy searching .

 

Steve, I have lloked through Google. You have supposedly very reputable dealers showing 165014 with sword hands as original. Marcello Pisani was quite adamant that sword hands were original to late-production 165014. Having looked at google, as you suggested, I can not really find any additional information. I am not a dealer...i am a collector, and have just one vintage Omega...this one. If you can point me in any specific direction, that would be great. Thanks.....

 

Looking through discussions on this topic on this forum, i see these comments:

"I've been advised by a knowledgeable and respected member on here that the 165.014 model featured several transitional elements - this included very early 165.014s featuring dauphine hands and dials from 14755s, and late model 165.014s featuring the famous sword hands from the 164.024 Seamaster 300s. This would be perfectly consistent with transitional elements seen in early calibre 861 Omega Speedmasters, which incorporated various combinations of dot-over-90 bezel, applied Omega dial, and Hippocampus-only casebacks found in calibre Ω321 premoon Speedies." From G-BOAC

"The dial and hands would be ok with me...." From MSNWatch

My conclusion is that for late-production (and my serial number is definitely at the end of the run), transition sword hands did happen.

Would you agree?

 

I always thought 165.014 hands were either dauphine early or baton late, but never sword. I thought the transition to sword
occurred in the 165.024 around 1965 when 165.014 was finished. Experts please?

 

It's an interesting question, but in my experience the 165.014 was had either the earlier dauphine or the transitional baton hands. The early 165.024's were still using the baton hands for a couple of years before transitioning to sword so I can't see why the swords would be used on the 165.014 then revert back to baton handsfor the 'new' .024 model.

 

Dauphine hands on seamaster 300????
Never seen any..
My 2 cents:
Broad arrow on early 2913
Small arrow on late 2913, 14755 and maybe some 165014.
Baton hands on 165014 and 165024 till around 1966-67.
Sword hands on 165024 from 1966-67 and 166024.

 

Yes sorry small arrow not dauphine.
Your assessment sounds spot on to me.
Of course there is the rare Italian 165024 with the small arrow hands too!

 

When I say dauphine, I mean the small arrow hands.

 

Hi, I am new here but a vintage collector sometime already.
In my collection I recently acquired an Italian Seamaster from 1963, all original.
It is now beeing serviced and after I will post some pictures.
My seamaster does have the 2913 hands. Also its box and original guarantee papers dated 1964 with watch type and number.
Here a picture of the dial with the hands to it.
Beautiful aging and no T before and after "swiss made"

 

That gilt dial is really cool- rarely see them and love them.
Do you know if that was a service replacement at some point in the lifetime of the watch or did it come like that out of the factory?
I've read disputed reports on those gold dials so just wanted to know if you had any definitive conclusions.

Look forward to more pics!

 

Considering the age period and lack of "T's" logic dictates it's not a service dial.

On other notes I never knew there was a gilt dial variant.

 

Indeed the watch is all original, no new parts at all. Here some more pictures to show for now.
In my opinion the dial is not guild, it has just an ultra nice patine. The patine matches the bezel perfectly as well. Very nice and rare watch.

 

I've just read posts here and there re. these gilty colored dials here are some in case you're interested:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/sm300-166-024-gilt.21316/

http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showthread.php?51465-Thoughts-on-this-SM300-please

One was sold by the Davidoff bros a while ago that was labelled gilt writing- I assumed it meant it was printed that way:
http://www.db1983.com/our-archive/omega-seamaster-300-165014-63-19641?imageID=0

The secrets these things hold... leaving us decades later trying to piece all the mysteries together!

 

Thanks for this information, more pictures will follow as soon as my watch is back from the watch maker

 

Just a couple exceptions or specifics as mentioned above:
165.024-63 with small arrow hands (we call them reverse broad arrow)
165.014-63 with small arrow hands
(these two appeared to have gilt printing and no T's on dial yet

165.014 with delivery on archives in 1967 had sword hands sometimes, but as mentioned above only the last deliveries.
This is also comparable to Ed White 105.003-65 we have seen delivered in 1968 which had a flat bottom chronograph hand.
Really need to check the archives extract on these to see if years make sense to the hand configuration before deciding if later replacements, franked watches or actually original.

 

Thanks For your input DB. My watch is indeed one of the exceptions.
As written, it is at the watchmaker for a complete renovation. I just got a picture of the revised watch and a better picture of the dial. Now without the hands. Personally I think it became gilt because of aging. The number is 20.3XX.X01 which make the watch definitely 1963.