Considering this Omega Seamaster 166.022 cal 565

Davidt

It’s a 166.002 (not .022). Everything appears correct but I’d like to see more pictures of the dial. You’ve only shown one which is poor quality and I’d like to see more to be confident the dial is original.

Davidt

It’s no straightforward job to explain how to validate a dial. If you post better pictures here we can confirm it’s original.

Absolutely no point taking this for authentication. You can find everything you need to know here

Dan S

This is what comes from people trying to learn about things in isolation over the internet. They overlook significant things (like overpolished cases, poorly printed dials, and mismatched colors in the movement) and think that minutiae are important (like screw-head orientation). I always recommend that new enthusiasts join a local meet-up group of watch enthusiasts to get some first-hand experience handling watches and seeing how more experienced people look at them.

G gladiaattori44

Thank you for the feedback. Definitely something I could look into, the meet-up group thing. And the orientation of the screw-heads was just my own observation. I assumed that such delicate movements would have extremely tight tolerances when it comes to the screws. One learns something new every day.