Very simply, I saw this on Friday, bought it yesterday, I'm pretty certain that the dial is right ... but I'm going to throw it open to the collective. Hands and crown are a different story but I'll be happy if the dial gets a thumbs up.

Here are the photos ...



Now, the back was tight. FT. I've only just got her open ...


Hit me with your thoughts, folks

 

Hard to tell. Gilt print on a black dial makes me feel hairs on my neck rising. But at a distance, this one looks OK, but, BUT! I would question the placement of "OMEGA", where the "E" is directly centered under the Ω, when the left leg of the E should be sightly more to the right.
The placing of AUTOMATIC is also troublesome. Once again the kerning and centering seem to be off.

It could be the angle of the photos, combined with the fact that the hands are "conveniently" placed.

I'm on the fence.

 

Looks like a redial to me.

 

Better photos would help, but it doesn't look good.

 

I just broke out the real camera ...
Now, I'll be honest - I spent a lot of time looking at this. There's not a mark out of place on the minute track. There are age spots that are pretty uniform across the dial (doesn't mean it's not a redial, just not necessarily a modern redial). What's really bugged me is, now that I've finally got the back off, the serial number which puts it early 60s rather than late 50s. As you'll see from the case back it's a 166.003 23m

 

Hmm. Serifs are there but the font on 'automatic' looks very suspect.

 

I'm aware of the variances that photos can introduce, but I think it's an older, very well done, redial.

Look at the variances in font height in Seamaster, like the "m", and the "r".

 

I know, I know .. I was more than 90% sure it was right ... until I finally got the back off. No-one's seen that font on a watch this late?

Ah well, at least it was cheap.

 

Also the second “s” is too far from the a

 

You're learning young Jedi.