Relume.
Thanks. Can you explain to me how I can best tell? Is it the color or the texture that tells you?
How does it compare to this one, where the dial is supposed to be original?
http://www.db1983.com/our-archive/omega-seamaster-300-165024-bt-19671?imageID=0
Thanks. Can you explain to me how I can best tell? Is it the color or the texture that tells you?
They say that a picture is worth 1000 words, so here is my 9,000 word answer:
What do you think of Relume, surely a significant price reduction? Is there anything else wrong with the watch?
As long as it is disclosed, the watch is priced accordingly, and you're OK with the watch and the price, no problem.
Problems start when re-lumes are not disclosed.
The left side in your image post is also relumed, correct?
Would it make much sense to compare two re-lumes?
Look at the picture of the watch above. This is the finest example of a 165.024 BT that I have ever seen. Even the Bienne air under the plexi is original...
Ooooops... that's offensive. In fact 😉
This is the watch I was hoping to find. A dream, congratulations!
As far as relumes go, I think it’s very well done and is a very attractive watch. As mentioned, if it’s disclosed and priced accordingly- I would take the OP’s watch over a moldy original lumed watch any-day. If the originality of the lume doesn’t bother you (don’t confuse a relume with a redial- the dial looks legit) then I see nothing to object to about this watch.
Scenario 1.
Don’t think the movement in OP’s watch was factory installed, as it’s a 23.7xx.xx serial, too early for that bezel and really on the boarder for any sword hands and BT dial.
Scenario 2.
Or the other way around, the movement could be considered correct to the case, as the caseback is also an earlier one with the reference number without dot (165024 instead of 165.024), and has a push in crown.
That would make the BT dial, hands and bezel a later add to the watch?
I think scenario 2 is more likely.
In the very best case only the bezel has been changed to this watch.
So at least parts from two different watches what i can observe.
Love @ndgal ’s BT, it’s an really early one and love that it’s been sold new in Finland! Maybe he could chime in on what it says on the caseback of his one above, dot or no dot?
That sounds very reasonable. Regarding the BT dial. From when were these used? From what I have read, it would have been from late 1966, early 1967. Is this correct and how exactly can this be dated?
