Forums Latest Auctions Members

Everything checks out except the caseback. Is this 166.024 BT legit?

  1. ffej4

    ffej4 Survey Man Apr 21, 2017

    Posts
    856
    Likes
    1,053
    Hi all,

    I'm looking at this SM300 166.024 "Big Triangle" and everything (to me) checks out as appropriate – the aging of the dial, case, and hands; the color and consistency of the lume; all the fonts on the dial and bezel. However, the inside of the caseback has a layout of text unlike any other legitimate example I have seen (and it doesn't list the correct model reference number). Also, my eyes may be playing a trick on me, but the sea monster's proportions on the back look a little bit off. I used Arne's vintage SM300 guide as a reference for the fake-busting along with my own knowledge.

    Thank you in advance as always; you guys are awesome.

    Happy (much needed) Friday!

    Jeff

    Edit: I should add one other potential red flag... This movement appears to date to '68 with the 27m serial. According the Arne's blog post, "The baton hands were used on early models, usually dating from 1962-1964 (...) It is highly likely that Omega used baton hands after 1965, but I would be suspicious of pieces with baton hands dating from 1968 and 1969." :confused:

    Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 8.24.05 AM.png Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 8.24.11 AM.png Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 8.24.18 AM.png Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 8.24.30 AM.png Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 8.24.41 AM.png Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 8.24.50 AM.png Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 8.25.00 AM.png Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 8.25.09 AM.png
     
    Edited Apr 21, 2017
  2. Joe K.

    Joe K. Curious about this text thingy below his avatar Apr 21, 2017

    Posts
    1,549
    Likes
    1,802
    you might want to correct your post, its a 166.024
     
    OMGRLX, gemini4 and ffej4 like this.
  3. ffej4

    ffej4 Survey Man Apr 21, 2017

    Posts
    856
    Likes
    1,053
    @Joe K. Thank you... I'm blushing. :oops:
     
  4. oddboy

    oddboy Zero to Grail+2998 In Six Months Apr 21, 2017

    Posts
    8,819
    Likes
    21,563
    Isnt the 1171/1 a modern bracelet?
     
    airansun, OMGRLX, ffej4 and 1 other person like this.
  5. X350 XJR

    X350 XJR Vintage Omega Aficionado Apr 21, 2017

    Posts
    7,140
    Likes
    12,875
    I would note that the movement is very tired looking, with multiple hues and a regulator cranked to one side as well as a rotor which has seen the inside of the case back.
     
    OMGRLX and ffej4 like this.
  6. DON

    DON Apr 21, 2017

    Posts
    646
    Likes
    316
    I would ask the seller for clean full frontal of the dial and back. They're angled in such a way that nothing on the back can be read and can't check for stubbies on the dial. Index ends near crown are hidden and left side a little out of focus.

    Just the way you want it to hide things you don't want seen

    DON
     
    OMGRLX, oddboy and ffej4 like this.
  7. watchlovr

    watchlovr Apr 21, 2017

    Posts
    1,248
    Likes
    1,568
    Looks honest enough at first look, bit of a hodge podge perhaps though.
    Couple of things strike me, 516 ends are valuable other own, the date disk looks newer than the rest of the watch but looking at the gasket the watch has not been serviced in years.
     
    ffej4 likes this.
  8. ffej4

    ffej4 Survey Man Apr 21, 2017

    Posts
    856
    Likes
    1,053
    Yes, it is. The combo with 516 endlinks is a little weird though. My guess is that this watch was serviced (maybe by Omega, maybe by an independent) sometime in the 70-90s, and they chose to swap out the old 1039 bracelet for a fresher and sturdier 1171/1. They also probably swapped the movement for another one during service as well (a '68 cal. 565 doesn't quite add up with baton hands from the '62-'64 era and the early beveled caseback). Looking at the dial, I'm guessing it experienced some pretty bad water damage back in the day, hence a movement swap and new date wheel.

    My conclusion is that this is likely a frankenwatch that was serviced some 20-30 years ago due to water damage (just look at that dial) and during so it experienced a movement and bracelet swap.

    The 165.024 caseback I still cannot explain.

    @watchlovr I'll try and get in contact with the seller to request that. That's a good point.

    Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 11.31.29 AM.png
     
    Edited Apr 21, 2017
  9. Dash1

    Dash1 Formerly: Ash Apr 21, 2017

    Posts
    1,188
    Likes
    1,543
    The case back is 166.024 which is correct for the date model.
     
    OMGRLX and ffej4 like this.
  10. ffej4

    ffej4 Survey Man Apr 21, 2017

    Posts
    856
    Likes
    1,053
    That's a 6? It looks like a 5 to me, but it could just be the reflection drowning out the lower left-hand portion of the 6. Looking at it closer I can see how it is indeed a 6. That's a good catch. Thank you!

    Edit: I an definitely see that it's a 6 now that you mention it. The curvature at the top is identical to the 6 next to it, and a 5 wouldn't have a top curve anyway. Thank you again for pointing that out!
     
    Edited Apr 21, 2017
  11. ffej4

    ffej4 Survey Man Apr 22, 2017

    Posts
    856
    Likes
    1,053
    Sorry to revive this thread, but another thing just struck me: baton hands were used circa 62-64, and the BT dial was used circa 67-on. Not only is it an odd combo, I'm unable to find another example with the same combination. I think this case can be closed. This appears to be a frankenwatch in most senses of the word.
     
  12. kox

    kox Apr 23, 2017

    Posts
    512
    Likes
    2,220
    Just to clear a few things up.
    1. The guide by Arne isn't very precise
    2. The baton hands were produced until early 1967. On the 165.024-64's until late '66 and on some early 165.024's early in 1967 production.
    3. The 166.024 was produced from second half of 1968. Yours' 275x serial is properly a ´69 production.
    4. The 166.024 was never delivered originally with the baton hands.
    5. The BT dial was first used on the W10's in 67 productions, but only on a very few civilian 165.024's in 67. And again, first on the 166.024 from 1968.
    6. You mention that the caseback is beveled. It is not! And that's correct for a 166.024 caseback.

    So, yes the hands are not original to the watch, but the rest is legit IMO, i.e. correct parts for a 166.024 (besides the 1171 bracelet)...but the condition...:thumbsdown:
     
    Dash1, bbdjohnny and ffej4 like this.
  13. Civic4982

    Civic4982 Aug 4, 2018

    Posts
    176
    Likes
    684
    Did you end up buying this one? Curious what it’s extraction would’ve showdd