Hi everyone, This 2913-3 (?) just popped up on eBay and while i'm not in the market for one (unless i upgrade from my 165.024), I have shared it here for some pointers on what to look for in these older seamasters (an education i guess). Are there any solid resources for the 2913s - like there are for the 16X024s? I understand the bezels are notoriously missing from these references - how does one verify if original, aldo or a newer replacement? Comparing to other 2913s the dauphine hands are incorrect, were they used on the later 2913s? Plus not sure on the dial, the text seems slimmer than it should.. could this be a later 2913 with an earlier caseback? Thoughts/knowledge/critique appreciated! Cheers, Ed
To my (incredibly) limited knowledge, I believe the first three sub references (-1, -2 and -3) have a 'count down' bezel, going from 50 to 10, the later references have the standard bezel and go from 10 to 50 (as is here). for this reason, the bezel is not original to this watch (or it is not a -3, and has an incorrect caseback). As for your other questions, I'm sure someone more experienced than me will weigh in soon.
I would stay away. Dial was redone, numbers a mess and omega symbol bad. Bezel also looks fake. I am not sure if LATE 2913-3's can have forward countdown bezels and this hand set? @kox input needed
Yes the -3 can have the count forward bezel and this hand style. As noted the dial is suspect and it’s difficult to be sure on the bezel insert without macro shots.
I've definitely seen the dodgy 2 in the 12 on that dial before... Will see if I can find the old sales ad. As above for the bezel it's impossible to tell from here, but looking at the reflection near the 20 it could be concave?
As Ash said above, countforward bezel and arrow minute/dauphine hour handset is also correct for a 2913-3, the later ones anyway, Furthermore I like to see a C3 caseback with this configuration and a 1959 production date. All trademarks of the transitional 2913-3. And this one have those. Serial 1655x is a seldom seen range, that is not in a chronological range compared to others, but production was late 1959, so ok. Besides the obvious repainted dial and perhaps redone bezel inlay, it seems correct.
