A friend of mine knows I linger on this forum, enjoying the opportunity to learn a bit more in my hobbiest pursuit. He forwarded me a series of pictures last night of a f300. I don't know a lot about these electrics, I confess, so I decided this was an opportunity to try to learn. (These are not my pics, and the watch is 1000 miles away, so this is all I can give you). I checked Chuck Maddox's case reference, Old-Omegas brochures, eBay for previous watch sales, as well as past OF posts and a few other internet sites. I came away with my own conclusion, but, to paraphrase a Mod on this forum, "everything is possible with old Omegas". So, rather than rely on myself, especially on a watch that I have never studied before, I decided to share some pics and get some input from those more knowledgeable than I. If the answer is as obvious as I think it is, please be gentle with me. Thanks, First, the watch and dial: Seems to be a "D" shape watch from around 1972 or so. The case doensn't appear to have been polished too much, and the brush markings seem to be consistent with those on the bracelet. Not really my style, but hey, this is about learning, not buying, right? I have only seen a few of these, mostly in Steel, and mostly Constellations, so my first thought was that this had to be the wrong dial for the watch. I have found images of this dial in online photos or brochures, but in round-cased watches; I can't find it in a gold Seamster. My initial thought was that this should be a Constellation, not a Seamaster, but it seems to be right. I am o.k. with this, provided those are little bits of lume I see at the end of the markers, and not just glare from the angle of the photo. The fact that this is a gold "OM" dial makes sense on this gold watch. So, I think this dial is correct, but my failures to recognize redialed watches in the past is what makes me a happy OF sales forum buyer, so if I am wrong, please correct me. Then, the movement: OK, a 9162 (at the 3 o'clock position on the movement) - aka an Omega 1250. What I was expecting from this watch. Of course, the pics are lacking enough detail for me to be sure of a serial number, I'd like to see a 34m+ serial number (1972+), but the next photo gave me a "what the hell" moment and caused me to think a lot less about the movement number. The case back: Yeah, for what appears (to my still-in-training eye) to be an otherwise decent piece, why is there an Observatory on the back of a Seamaster? WTH? Did someone take a round-cased Seamaster dial and put it in a Constellation D Case? Would those even fit? Now my instincts kick in and I want to know what is going on; let's check the case back just for kicks: It doesn't show as well as I hoped, but I believe the ref # to be 198.0004. So, because of the "9", I think this case is right for a Constellation Electric, so it could be a fit for this watch; however, the "1" makes me think it should have been on a strap, not a bracelet. I haven't any idea on the .0004, and couldn't find it on the hit-or-miss vintage database, but I have seen that reference before when associated with images of steel watches, and this caseback is marked 18k. So, my initial impression was that someone swapped out a Seamaster dial on a Connie, simply because I associate Connies as a higher end Omega in 1972, and this was cased in gold (if the hallmark were correct). However, based on the "19x"caseback ref #, I think someone either lost the original casebook, scarred up the original gold when removing it and found an incorrect replacement, or just didn't know what they were doing and lost track when opening too many watches to change batteries at some mall kiosk. Whatever happened, my sleuthing leads me to believe that at some point the wrong caseback found its way onto an otherwise right watch. What (or how much) have I missed here? Advance appreciation to the Forum for your kind input.