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

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." 😵‍💫

@Joe K. Thank you... I'm blushing. 😬

Isnt the 1171/1 a modern bracelet?

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

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.

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!

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.

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...👎

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