Experienced eyes on a 166.010?

Posts
123
Likes
266
Was hoping I could get some quick opinions on this watch I'm looking at. To me it looks like great condition for the price of $800. The seller said the previous owner had it serviced 1.5 years ago. The movement photo is from that previous sale. Thanks again for all the help.

Edited:
 
Posts
13,202
Likes
22,961
I assume $800?

Those photos are incredibly poor quality. The detail on the dial can’t be seen so I’d want better ones to make sure the dial is original and in good condition.

Is there proof of service? If not, it doesn’t really mean anything.

Lack of bracelet means this is comparable to watches with bracelet at 1k. Can’t say I’d be jumping over people to buy it from those pictures.
 
Posts
123
Likes
266
I assume $800?
Good catch, yes USD. Editing the original post.
Those photos are incredibly poor quality. The detail on the dial can’t be seen so I’d want better ones to make sure the dial is original and in good condition.
I asked the seller for some more closeups of the dial, fill post followups if/when I get a response
Is there proof of service? If not, it doesn’t really mean anything.
No proof of service. They say a timegrapher app shows +8 seconds/say.
Lack of bracelet means this is comparable to watches with bracelet at 1k. Can’t say I’d be jumping over people to buy it from those pictures.
Yeah, my thinking was that if 1k seems to be about market rate for this red with bracelet, maybe I could get slightly nicer condition at that price by buying the watch and bracelet separately. Plus free fancy(?) leather strap I guess? How would you assess the case condition? To me it looked on the nicer end of what I've seen.
 
Posts
13,202
Likes
22,961
Needs better pictures. Looks to me like the case may have been ‘refreshed’ and it looks a bit rough around some of the edges.
 
Posts
123
Likes
266
Needs better pictures. Looks to me like the case may have been ‘refreshed’ and it looks a bit rough around some of the edges.
He sent some more pretty blurry photos. Anything to go off in any of these?

 
Posts
13,202
Likes
22,961
Still not great are they.

I mean, it doesn’t have a bracelet (which imo this reference needs as the bracelet matches it so well) and it has the wrong crown (like the SMDV I think the crowns on these should be correct as they’re very distinctive and the wrong crown looks clumsy). The price is ok but not amazing but the seller can’t take good enough pictures to judge the dial condition.

I’d just keep looking, I can’t see the benefit of persevering with this one.
 
Posts
342
Likes
643
I personally don't like the 5 row beads of rice bracelets on these. They look nicer in pictures than they wear in real life, in my opinion, and even the correct end links never seem to fit that flush. But that's all subjective. Fact is, you can find one on the secondary market easily. If you find a watch you like without a bracelet don't let that stop you.

I really like the 7 row bor on Connie's, however.

Also, I'm not so sure this knurled crown is incorrect here. While earlier references have the clover style crown almost all of the later made 166.010 (late 60s) that I have seen have this knurled crown. Your example is 28mil SN from about 1969.

Have any of you seen an original 1969 166.010 with a clover style crown?