- Posts
- 12,090
- Likes
- 20,993
Davidt
·25m serial movement is within the cluster of known SM300 serials.
Agree, mine is 25,6xxxxx.
But I’m wondering whether @Knudsen1971 is saying 25,9xxxxx is part of a non sm300 batch of serials.
ID Watch - is this a 165.024?
Agree, mine is 25,6xxxxx.
But I’m wondering whether @Knudsen1971 is saying 25,9xxxxx is part of a non sm300 batch of serials.
- Posts
- 208
- Likes
- 80
bigtriangle68
·The OP could pay for an Omega Extract from the Archives to see which watch model the movement originated in.
- Posts
- 28,130
- Likes
- 71,920
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerThe OP could pay for an Omega Extract from the Archives to see which watch model the movement originated in.
No he can’t. Extracts have been shut down for some time now.
- Posts
- 208
- Likes
- 80
bigtriangle68
·No he can’t. Extracts have been shut down for some time now.
Is it known why Omega killed this off?
- Posts
- 28,130
- Likes
- 71,920
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerIs it known why Omega killed this off?
That 3 million auctioned Speedmaster that was a huge fraud, in part perpetrated (allegedly) by people who worked in the archives...
- Posts
- 208
- Likes
- 80
bigtriangle68
·That 3 million auctioned Speedmaster that was a huge fraud, in part perpetrated (allegedly) by people who worked in the archives...
Interesting. Were the Extracts sold to folks fraudulent (made up), worthy of a class-action suit? Or were the Extracts accurate but Omega is cleaning house in the archive Dept due to the 3m Speedmaster?
- Posts
- 28,130
- Likes
- 71,920
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerInteresting. Were the Extracts sold to folks fraudulent (made up), worthy of a class-action suit? Or were the Extracts accurate but Omega is cleaning house in the archive Dept due to the 3m Speedmaster?
Search the forum for it - there's a lengthy thread on it.
- Posts
- 21,862
- Likes
- 49,595
Dan S
·Interesting. Were the Extracts sold to folks fraudulent (made up), worthy of a class-action suit? Or were the Extracts accurate but Omega is cleaning house in the archive Dept due to the 3m Speedmaster?
- Posts
- 260
- Likes
- 189
Knudsen1971
·25m serial movement is within the cluster of known SM300 serials.
There were two larger batches of 25mil 165.024 (25.60 & 25.61), with some exceptions of course.
I can`t of course substitute Omega EoA, but my database is large enough to have some basic orientation.
As such, my findings above on this particular watch leads me to the conclusion, that this watch is a part watch, sorry.
- Posts
- 208
- Likes
- 80
bigtriangle68
·To explain a bit, before you made unnecessary mess...please read properly my statement, I`m not saying, that 25 mil is out of the range, I saying, that 2596xxxx is out. Of course, there are batches with 25mil, as the 165.024 may vary from 20.30 to 28.90 mil, as we produced 1963-1970.
There were two larger batches of 25mil 165.024 (25.60 & 25.61), with some exceptions of course.
I can`t of course substitute Omega EoA, but my database is large enough to have some basic orientation.
As such, my findings above on this particular watch leads me to the conclusion, that this watch is a part watch, sorry.
Your conclusion is the OP has a parts watch based on a database of movement serial numbers of how many watches produced over a seven year period?
- Posts
- 208
- Likes
- 80
bigtriangle68
·This is a database you posted. Are you saying you have 9 watches produced in 1968 in your database and this proves the OP has a put together?
- Posts
- 260
- Likes
- 189
Knudsen1971
·This is a quite old snapshot, I have now close to 200 pieces now. It is not bulettproof, but do you have better one?
And as I wrote before, what leads me to conlusion is not only the SN, but considering suspicious serial number, which doesnt match the earlier style of case/bezel, replacement luminova dial and hans, wrong crown... try to read my older post here, instead repeating questions please.
And as I wrote before, what leads me to conlusion is not only the SN, but considering suspicious serial number, which doesnt match the earlier style of case/bezel, replacement luminova dial and hans, wrong crown... try to read my older post here, instead repeating questions please.
- Posts
- 208
- Likes
- 80
bigtriangle68
·This is a quite old snapshot, I have now close to 200 pieces now. It is not bulettproof, but do you have better one?
And as I wrote before, what leads me to conlusion is not only the SN, but considering suspicious serial number, which doesnt match the earlier style of case/bezel, replacement luminova dial and hans, wrong crown... try to read my older post here, instead repeating questions please.
The OP said his grandfather purchased the watch. You're the one telling the OP his grandfather's watch is a put together. It's your burden of proof to substantiate your claim.
I never said you are wrong, but I questioned your methodology based on the mere 9 serial numbers from 1968 Seamasters you previously posted on the forum in a data spreadsheet.
Just because there is a replacement luminova dial and incorrect crown and bracelet doesn't necessarily mean the watch is a put together. An independent watchmaker could have effectuated the installation of any non-OEM parts during a service or repair.
- Posts
- 226
- Likes
- 216
bazelot
·Beautiful watch. I wish i got something like that from my grandpa.
- Posts
- 260
- Likes
- 189
Knudsen1971
·The OP said his grandfather purchased the watch. You're the one telling the OP his grandfather's watch is a put together. It's your burden of proof to substantiate your claim.
I never said you are wrong, but I questioned your methodology based on the mere 9 serial numbers from 1968 Seamasters you previously posted on the forum in a data spreadsheet.
Just because there is a replacement luminova dial and incorrect crown and bracelet doesn't necessarily mean the watch is a put together. An independent watchmaker could have effectuated the installation of any non-OEM parts during a service or repair.
I already explained here twice, what are the suspicious markers here for me. Why would a watchmaker, who has access to service dial and hands would not apply also the original crown? Why there is 1968 movement in 1966-67 case? I just shared my opinion on this watch, it is a subjective one, based on my knowledge and experience.
If you are not able to accept it, try to get some own. This is my last troll feed, I promise.
- Posts
- 208
- Likes
- 80
bigtriangle68
·Are you a troll, or just ignorant?
I already explained here twice, what are the suspicious markers here for me. Why would a watchmaker, who has access to service dial and hands would not apply also the original crown? Why there is 1968 movement in 1966-67 case? I just shared my opinion on this watch, it is a subjective one, based on my knowledge and experience.
If you are not able to accept it, try to get some own. This is my last troll feed, I promise.
Sorry, 2598xxxx is not usual range for SM 300... putting the movement to beginning of 1968, should be CB case and B4 dial, yours is B3....seems more and more as a franken watch to me...nothing fits...
Is it your position that the Omega factory could NOT have have inserted an Omega 552 movement with a 1968 serial range in an SM300 case which has 1967 markings?
Seamaster 300 luminova service dials and hands have existed for roughly 20 years or more. We don't know when the incorrect, broken non-working crown was installed and by whom. All we can conclude is the dial and hands were installed sometime within the last 20 years or so.
And if the OP's grandfather's watch is a "Franken" put together, as you claim, how do you account for the presence of what appears to be a genuine period correct tritium bakelite bezel?
Edited:
- Posts
- 208
- Likes
- 80
bigtriangle68
·Are you a troll, or just ignorant? Why there is 1968 movement in 1966-67 case?
Sorry, 2598xxxx is not usual range for SM 300... putting the movement to beginning of 1968
This auction states that, per an Omega Extract from the Archives, Ref. ST165.024 Movement No. 26302036 was delivered in December 1967.
Therefore, since Omega states a 26.3m serial 552 was delivered in December 1967, is it not possible that the OP's grandfather's 25.9m serial 552 dates to 1967 as well?
https://www.iconeek.com/auction-lot/omega-seamaster-300-big-triangle-ref.-st165.0_4FD46149AE
Edited:
- Posts
- 260
- Likes
- 189
Knudsen1971
·I assume it is a typo in the listing, there is no pic of the certificate. I use for my db only watches, where serial number at least partialy can be seen + pic of certificate.
2630xxxx range was used FEB-AUG 1968, in this period was made also one of the batches for UK military.
The B3 bezel + HF case was used as it seems to me from AUG1966 to JUN1967, movement 2598xxxx is I`m pretty sure not from SM300, as Omega used for SM 300 in DEC67-JAN68 batches 2561 and 2628.
This is to me very suspicious piece at minimum. There are plenty of barnfinds, "grandfathers inherited, found in wardrobe" watches on the market. I trust only my knowledge, but it`s up to you, what you want to trust or not.
Amen.
2630xxxx range was used FEB-AUG 1968, in this period was made also one of the batches for UK military.
The B3 bezel + HF case was used as it seems to me from AUG1966 to JUN1967, movement 2598xxxx is I`m pretty sure not from SM300, as Omega used for SM 300 in DEC67-JAN68 batches 2561 and 2628.
This is to me very suspicious piece at minimum. There are plenty of barnfinds, "grandfathers inherited, found in wardrobe" watches on the market. I trust only my knowledge, but it`s up to you, what you want to trust or not.
Amen.
- Posts
- 3
- Likes
- 7
fabfab_iconeek
·Hi Guys,
yes, you re right , it was a cataloguing mistake.
According to the Omega Extract of Archives, for serial no. 26302036, the watch was produced in April 25th, 1968.
i m actually not able to correct the description online through the invaluable platform, sorry.
best regards
Fabien Chicha
ICONEEK.
yes, you re right , it was a cataloguing mistake.
According to the Omega Extract of Archives, for serial no. 26302036, the watch was produced in April 25th, 1968.
i m actually not able to correct the description online through the invaluable platform, sorry.
best regards
Fabien Chicha
ICONEEK.
- Posts
- 260
- Likes
- 189
Knudsen1971
·Thank you for this feedback!
