168.022 - thoughts on the movement?

Dear Forum,

Happy Friday!

I am purely posting this as I am furthering my learning and what over the last year has clearly become my hobby that is here to say! It is fair to say I am completely hooked in learning and being part of this forum and world!

I stumbled across this Seamaster on eBay (which is fantastic for furthering my learning) and whilst I can tell the case back is highly polished and it looks like a redial, I focused on the movement and I think it might be a franken but totally appreciate I may be wrong but for the following reasons:
1. The two tone movement, am I right to think movements should be bronze colored and not a mix of bronze/gold?
2. The Omega Swiss Watch Co (and circle below) looks off to me, not a clean and crisp stamp?
3. The Cal is barely legible, it is advertised as a Cal 534 but almost impossible to read?



Just a bit of Friday learning for me 😀

Best wishes,
Dave

I’m pretty sure a 168.022 should have a 565 cal.movement. Don’t think Omega ever made a 536

Shouldn't the a Watch with a 16(8) have a chronometer rated movement? Then a 564 would be the right movement, the 565 isn't a Chronometer rated Movement. This movement looks very tired.

I sit corrected. Was trying to go from memory, probably not a good idea anymore

Here are some more pics of the Seamaster if it helps...

Looks like the case was badly refinished.

I did think the same myself and the case back looks very over polished.

Looks more overbrushed... 😁

Based on the pics I can't tell for sure it's redial. Maybe it is. At least hour and minute hand are wrong.

Edit: Redial, yes.

My hours of reading and pouring over the threads on OF are starting to pay off 😀 a year ago I'd of snapped that watch up and been non the wiser.

+Hands don't fit, no lume on the dial, lume on the hands. The hour hand is wrong from the design.
Hard pass.

Isn't the Seamaster S all wrong for a mid 60's watch?