I'm inexperienced and I would like to seek your advice on a type of watch that I have been wanting to buy for a long time. I'm finally in the position to make the move, but now I really want to be sure I'm buying the best I can. My interest is in the following references: 165.014, 165.024 (or 166.024), 14755, 2913.

This is one candidate currently on chrono, from 1962, priced at 15k. The seller is very responsive and pleasant. I'm not doubting the originality, but I would like advice on the state of the watch, specifically if all the parts are of the time of the watch and correct for the reference. Strap excluded of course. I would like to know if to your eyes the watch presents any signs of restoration. The seller response to these questions is that as far as he can tell the watch is all correct and untouched. The bezel for example, looks almost perfect, is that possible on a watch this age?

I'm open to tips on currently on sale watches in the references mentioned above. It is important to me that bezel, dial, hands are untouched and in good to great condition.

Thank you all in advance.

 

That is not always a good sign



I'm in no way an expert for this reference, I hope you will get more competently feedback later.

Just two thoughts:

Here is a bezel discussion and if you compare the original one with yours I'm pretty shure yours is not original

The crown isn't correct IMO but this alone shouldn't be a deal breaker



The same seller offers another SM300

EDIT: Picture replaced by a link to avoid potential misunderstandings


and claims the bezel as original.

IMO this is a service bezel which might be from Omega but is in no way original to the watch.

Either the seller doesn't know what he is talking about or he is claiming something which isn't true.

Both alternatives aren't acceptable

Buying a vintage SM300 is a tough job and it may take some time with reading and analysing until you'll find a good one

 

Does the seller claim that the bezel is original? Totally intact bezels are incredibly unusual. I would need to see high resolution photos from various angles.

 

I would want to see some straight-on shots of the dial. He has them for the other Seamaster (sort of), why not this one? That is a potential flag. I would also want clear (not artistically lit) shots of the case sides and the tops and bottoms of the lugs. $15k is a lot of money to ask without providing much better photos. There often is a reason (or more) why the photos are not better/ more complete.

 

Here's the link with some better shots:

https://www.rkowatches.com/nl/colle...eamaster-300-1962-mint?variant=40738851258567

Seller is from the Netherlands. Dont know him.

 

Thank you for the link to the bezel discussion, that is going to be very helpful for me to do some comparisons. I have asked the seller for a few more images, macro shots of bezel, lumes, dial.

 

Asked for more photos, he had sent me a side shot already, attached here. More to come.

 

He claims that in his views everything is original. I asked very specific questions regarding the presence of any service parts and the state of the dial (lume, dial itself) to which he replied: "The watch is just stunning and as far as we can tell there is no service parts(can’t guarantee something in movement was ever changed but it’s all Omega and original), from the outside we did our best to investigate but as far as we could see it’s all correct."

 

I believe the bezel is restored. Service crown as well

 

That was my suspicion as well.

 

Case fairly heavily polished, crown not original. Bezel not original which is common but at this price it should be original.

 

At 50, notice the gap between the bezel ring and the watch case. Indicative of a bezel not original (as well as restored).

 

Thank you, very helpful. What is the general opinion on restored bezels for these watches, specifically:
- are they acceptable? To me it is about quality, a poorly restored bezel does not interest me. But a well done one might.
- how should the influence the price?

 

This is very interesting. When you say not original, do you mean not an Omega part, or a service Omega part not of the time of the watch?

 

An authentic early SM300 bezel, subsequently restored, but (perhaps) not original to the OP watch. Not all early SM300 bezels and outer cases were the exact same size.

 

Makes sense, and we are talking about the space that is left between the inner ring of the bezel, and the outer ring of the case? Is the desired gap almost zero, so no gap to the naked eye? I guess some gap is necessary to allow rotation as metal expands/contracts, correct?