Community Stories

Correct Movement on ‘67 SM 300 166.024?

AustinCambridge
Posts
175
Likes
769
Hello OF,

Looking at omegaseamaster300.com there’s no reference to a Calibre 563 as appears on this one I just saw on eBay. Is it a frankenwatch or just omitted as an option on the website?
Also bezel very clean and seems to be from another year, though attractive.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/303568854938

Thanks for sharing thoughts

9CFC7E63-F145-47BE-9995-746A62EED3D9.jpeg CAA1B1EC-F554-460B-880E-21AE088C6B07.jpeg 1680D81D-A6AE-459A-AEBC-155CBBA29F36.jpeg
 
This website may earn commission from Ebay sales.
MCC
Posts
603
Likes
549
As far as I know that movement did not originate in a Seamaster 300. possibly came from a De Ville with a production date of around 1968/69
 
Donn Chambers
Posts
2,703
Likes
3,601
gemini4 gemini4
Caliber 563 would be correct for a watch produced for USA sale.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/caliber-550-adjusted-or-not.105514/#post-1381515

Ditto this. I had one of these USA Seamaster 300s a few years ago, and got the info from the Omega database on production back when they did this for free via email without the fancy “extract from the archives.” The serial number on the 563 movement was correct for a Seamaster 300 sold to the US market.
 
AustinCambridge
Posts
175
Likes
769
Thank you, always so much to learn here on OF.

Does the bezel seem a replacement given how scratched up the crystal is? I know it doesn’t appear to be a “service bezel” but seems inconsistent.
 
AustinCambridge
Posts
175
Likes
769
Also to the 563 question, is that for the US due to duties, the variation with fewer jewels and unadjusted?
 
Caliber561
Posts
1,567
Likes
2,677
Shouldn't there be an OXG on the balance cock if it was delivered to the US?
 
Donn Chambers
Posts
2,703
Likes
3,601
Peter_from_NL aps26469
This source seems to imply differently.

https://www.omegaseamaster300.com/

Not really. You missed this quote near the end:

“The calibre 563 (1965) was produced for the American market and featured a calendar function but reduced to 17 jewels. The Calibre 560 was also for the American market; this was a 552 calibre reduced to 17 jewels (see below).”
 
AustinCambridge
Posts
175
Likes
769
Donn Chambers Donn Chambers
Not really. You missed this quote near the end:

“The calibre 563 (1965) was produced for the American market and featured a calendar function but reduced to 17 jewels. The Calibre 560 was also for the American market; this was a 552 calibre reduced to 17 jewels (see below).”

Missed that! Thanks.
 
padders
Posts
10,446
Likes
16,336
Donn Chambers Donn Chambers
Not really. You missed this quote near the end:

“The calibre 563 (1965) was produced for the American market and featured a calendar function but reduced to 17 jewels. The Calibre 560 was also for the American market; this was a 552 calibre reduced to 17 jewels (see below).”
The 17j version of the 552 is the 550, both have no date function. The 560 is 17j with slow date set, the 563 has quickset date with 17j, the 565 is the full fat 24j version of the latter.

55x family equals no date, 56x has a date and of course 75x has day date. I don’t know of any exceptions.

Take that website info with caution. The author is banned here.
Edited:
 
kox
Posts
584
Likes
2,680
padders padders
The 17j version of the 552 is the 550, both have no date function. The 560 is 17j with slow date set, the 563 has quickset date with 17j, the 565 is the full fat 24j version of the latter.

55x family equals no date, 56x has a date and of course 75x has day date. I don’t know of any exceptions.

Take that website info with caution. The author is banned here.

Precisely. Also discussed here. And there were no SM300 with a cal 560 (or 562)
 
Donn Chambers
Posts
2,703
Likes
3,601
padders padders
The 17j version of the 552 is the 550, both have no date function. The 560 is 17j with slow date set, the 563 has quickset date with 17j, the 565 is the full fat 24j version of the latter.

55x family equals no date, 56x has a date and of course 75x has day date. I don’t know of any exceptions.

Take that website info with caution. The author is banned here.

Thanks for the clarification. It’s always good to remember to take things found on the internet with a grain of salt until one finds more supporting evidence.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...