- Posts
- 2
- Likes
- 0
seikomaeg
·Hello everyone,
As a collector from South Korea, it is quite difficult for me to find good vintage Omega examples locally. However, I recently came across an Omega Seamaster 300 ref. 165.024 from a well-known watch dealer, and I am seriously considering purchasing it. I would greatly appreciate the opinions of experienced collectors and enthusiasts.
Apologies for the poor image quality.
1.The watch is said to be from 1966 and is fitted with the cal. 552 movement.
2.The bezel and dial seem consistent with a 1966 example to my eyes, but do they appear to be original?
3.The crystal looks exceptionally clean and I cannot see an Omega logo in it. I suspect it has been replaced.
4.The caseback photos are not very clear, but does it appear to be original?
5.Based on the clearer photos of the crown, it does not seem to be the original crown and appears to have been replaced. In your opinion, does a replacement crown significantly reduce the value of a vintage 165.024, or is this generally considered acceptable?
6.The lume on the hands and dial appears to have aged and faded in a very similar manner. However, the hands themselves seem to be in remarkably good condition, which makes me wonder if they may have been replaced at some point. Do the hands appear to be original to you?
I would be very grateful for any thoughts, opinions, or observations you may have.
Thank you very much.
As a collector from South Korea, it is quite difficult for me to find good vintage Omega examples locally. However, I recently came across an Omega Seamaster 300 ref. 165.024 from a well-known watch dealer, and I am seriously considering purchasing it. I would greatly appreciate the opinions of experienced collectors and enthusiasts.
Apologies for the poor image quality.
1.The watch is said to be from 1966 and is fitted with the cal. 552 movement.
2.The bezel and dial seem consistent with a 1966 example to my eyes, but do they appear to be original?
3.The crystal looks exceptionally clean and I cannot see an Omega logo in it. I suspect it has been replaced.
4.The caseback photos are not very clear, but does it appear to be original?
5.Based on the clearer photos of the crown, it does not seem to be the original crown and appears to have been replaced. In your opinion, does a replacement crown significantly reduce the value of a vintage 165.024, or is this generally considered acceptable?
6.The lume on the hands and dial appears to have aged and faded in a very similar manner. However, the hands themselves seem to be in remarkably good condition, which makes me wonder if they may have been replaced at some point. Do the hands appear to be original to you?
I would be very grateful for any thoughts, opinions, or observations you may have.
Thank you very much.
