I wasn't planning on buying a Big Triangle, but one popped up, and here we are. This one is a bit of a conundrum, and I will be honest, it came from a source that I would not normally prefer. The ebay seller is new, and a majority of their auctions are Rolex redials with a smattering of genuine vintage Rolex parts. They stated that the dial had some lume work done, but could not reference exactly what. I took a chance, and it arrived today after a bizarre FedEx journey that started...wait for it...in Singapore! Yep, the watch sold by a US seller, who had the watch shipped from Singapore after the ebay auction. So this is what I have, and details that I am able to give. Any insight or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Case is overpolished (compared to my unpolished 67 HF case), but case lines remain intact for the most part--a trip to ABC and it will be back up to speed. The dial and hands...oh the dial and hands. If the seller didn't say that work had been done, the thought would never even cross my mind that it was anything other than 100% original, as it appears to be in near perfect original shape with the lume application and patina being darn near identical to 67. It looks 100% original to me, but I am far from an expert. The font is a bit different, and I don't know if that is a red flag. The bezel is the same as my 67, but appears (insert wise) to be in near NOS condition. What is interesting is the at knurling is more like the bezel in my 68 CB case, obviously has been hit with a polishing wheel. Case back is correct, identical to my 67 HF case. Movement is the correct 25,xxx,xxx cal.552. Crown is correct original Naiad close footed crown. And here is a pick compared to my 67 HF case, the 68 CB is at home. So...what do I have here? Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
From your photos the bezel looks like a luminova one, should be easy to check. I am also used to seeing the pinholes in the lume at 12 and 6, sometimes they are difficult to see but usually they are more prominent in BT dials. Can you see them with a loupe? I can see them in the photo of your other SM300. If they are not there (on a BT dial) it could be an indication of a relume, if so it is a very good one because apart from the holes, it looks good to me.
Definitely not luminova, just shot both 300s with my phone flashlight, and they lit up and then quickly faded...both dial/bezels were the exact same color.
I'll leave the external bits to others, but I'm curious what the extra hole in the main plate is all about...it's between the case clamp that is visible and the stem...not normal.
I had only looked at the 550 series, but I was just looking at watches I've serviced with date and see a 560 that has it, so it looks like it is a main plate from a 56X movement. Franken movement, so now you wonder what else is franken...
I buy bits and pieces for my Speedy from a dealer in Singapore, faster shipping than most US sellers.
Other than the monkey business in the mov't dept, if anything else is a total fake with this watch, I'd be stunned... May I ask roughly how much you paid for it?
A bit under $4k. Here is a pic of the lume compared to my two other examples. This was after I hit them with a 400 lumen light. Matching dial and hand lume color that mismatches bezel lume seems to indicate lume work at some point...would others agree?
@Watchnut, you aren't allowed to complain about your own watch unless you overpaid. Since you grossly underpaid, only other forum members are allowed to disparage your watch. Sorry, those are the rules.
Luminescence is quite a different color. I would say definitely agrees with them having said the lume was redone. I do know for a fact that there is now lume made out there that only glows briefly and dimly, just like vintage tritium, and the stuff I saw does glow vintage green.
Fair enough, but ya'll are a tough crowd! @pitpro well that answers that question. Wow...the dial guys are getting pretty damn good to be able to match the vintage lume color and have it mimic tritium to boot.
The different lume glow in this case would also suggest a relume to me..other than that i have to say it looks really good. The font on the dial is the same as that of my big triangle, as is the bezel insert and caseback. My dial does not have the pinholes at 12 and 6 either, although I am aware of several other examples owned by experienced collectors where the pinholes are not present, so I'm not certain it's a definite tell. One of my friends who is a long time collector of sm300s indicated to me his belief that some of the earlier batches did not come with pinholes. I do know most have them. I'd love to know if there are any other 165.024 owners here whose dials do not have the pinholes too.
The lack of pinhole is current and not a criteria to state about relumed dial. About the OP watch, I would not conclude directly to a relumed based on the lume shot provided. Of course it is a possibility, but SM300 have this particularly that dial, hands and bezel were often source from different supplier I would say. For example there is a lot of pristine SM300 having hands with different shade in the patina compare to the dial. When you check with a loupe, you clearly see that hands were not relumed but the colour is not matching exactly the dial. So I am not assuming that the dial is not relumed but just that we all need to be carefull before concluding...
