I've been watching this SM300 for a while. 3 days to go and it's auction is already at 3900 GBP ($5500). On first glance it looks very nice. A fine (somewhat rare) bezel, pristine hands and dial. Tropical even. Has a hard to source 1506/16 original bracelet. The seller is a known, highly (ebay) rated UK dealer who says:
"This is by far the best example I have owned, the watch is totally original with the exception of the new plexi (old original crazed one supplied"



http://www.ebay.com/itm/291697977516?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:ITPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

But what about the close up of his dial??? Especially the T Swiss Made T inscription at 6 o'clock??? It doesn't look original at all. Opinions? Is it possible the Ts were added quickly to satisfy a change in law regarding Radium?

The dial in the 165024-64 for auction. Notice how "fuzzy the "T Swiss Made T is compared to the other Sm300 165 dials below it. Unlike the 2 dials below, the top of the Ts is written at a higher plain than Swiss Made.



Look how crips the T Swiss Made T is on these 2 dials. The Ts appear even with the Swiss Made. Are there other, tell tail, signs that I am missing???

 

I agree that the "T"s look a bit odd, but the dial does look original, IMO, aside from the relume. Notice how the "12" was also relumed.
Maybe at some point someone touched up the Ts?

 

Very interesting points. I like the theory that Omega didn't want to waste a radium dial, and simply scraped and relumed it with tritium and needed to mark it appropriately. Kind of like what Rolex did with the matte tritium service dials that they converted to luminova.

Not they are in any way related, but interestingly enough, this lume patina color appears to be very similar to my '67 165.024. I will check my "Ts" tonight in the off chance that they match the watch on ebay.

This is where I think vintage watches get fascinating, obsessing, but in a good way, to understand the story of the piece.

 

I don't think Radium pieces were scraped. I believe, by 1964, that these Omega dials were using Tritium as a lume. A law change required that the dials be identified with the Ts.

 

Well, if not scraped, do you think that it is radium and that the Ts were just to satisfy? That would be interesting.

I don't know about the dial making process, but is it possible that Omega had radium dials that were printed but not lumed during the changeover from radium to tritium? This would explain why the tritium was added as well as the Ts.

 

Very difficult to tell from photos, but it appears original. The hands themselves look to be original to the watch, the lume in the hands is very hard to tell based on this image. Can you request macro shots that are slightly underexposed?

The "T" looks odd...should be at the same height as "swiss". And should the aging on the font be the same color? Here is mine for reference.

Overall it looks like a very nice piece though. Have you PM'd the owner...he is a member here.

 

I believe Moonwatch Only mentions that Omega stopped using Radium, and started using Tritium, sometimes toward that end of the 2998's (the early 1960's). The dials were using Tritium for a few years but only started the Ts indication to be incompliance with changing Swiss Law of approx 1963, 1964. For example, the 105.012-63 dial has no Ts. Neither does the 105.002-62. I don't believe either one has evidence of radium.

 

Omega Sports Watches by John Goldberger

Page 27 left hand side, same dial, same "Ts" with same painted tritium 12.

 

This dial has not been touched at all on the lume or the Ts, it is totally original, I have described it accurately.
I don't really need this auction spoiling as the watch is a beauty.
Cheers

 

First off - this example is a nice one. Good condition, with correct bracelet/EL and correct parts IMO...and a really really strong price already. @michael e is a good guy from whom I actually bought a similar 165.024-64 some years ago (without this kind of Ts though). Look at the listings pictures in natural lighting, where it looks great. The ones in "unatural" lighting really doesn't do it any favours regarding lume etc.

These early 165.024 dials are interesting. Some facts (as I see them anyway):
The first 165.024-63 batches (early 64 production) came with a non T dial, but it was not a radium dial. The 165.014 also came with this dial, but on it's second sub-refence, also -63 and 1964 production. Also some without Ts on the first batches (but not as many seen as on the 165.024-63).
Below: non Ts dial and the listing dial / high Ts VS the "normal" low Ts.




But you need to compare watches/dials from the same subreferences and within the somewhat same serial range. Don't have a nice closeup handy, but below is my 165.014-64 (left) and 165.024-64 (right) as reference.



So when did the 165.0x4 switch to the Ts dials? On some late -63 references and on all (most) -64's and forward. The watch in question has a somewhat early serial in the 165.024-64 range. IMO it could have had a non Ts dial. So why this type of high Ts (which I have not seen before. And to my eyes the one in the Goldberger book has the normal "low" Ts. Sorry Mike).

Well, two theories:
A - the variant with the Ts wasn't ready from the manufactor, so Omega added the Ts by "hand" on some of the non Ts stock dials. Yes perhaps they needed to meet legislation very fast. Remember that 1964 was a change year from radium to tritium on many models. Look at the same time periode for the speedy 105.002/105.003 for instance.
B - a local watchmaker did apply the Ts to the non Ts dial at a service, by the customers request. Stranger things have happend ...
C - ...and no, I'm not going into some prototype theory But a trial/ sample from the manufactor would be a third guess. And somehow it ended on a production watch.
Personally, I'm thorn between the 3 theories, but I do believe it's one of them.

Regarding the "lumed" 12 font issue. That's a hard call. Again, I have no 165.024's with this, nore have I seen one. Many of the early dials had a somewhat different lacquer, which could make the dial look more glossy than the later and also some where the printing (also the numbers) looks very gilt instead of white. IMO the look of this dial and the one in the Goldberger book could be a resultat of "pollution" from UV, air, dirt, the lume etc combined with this type of printing and lacque. Perhaps only gilt print on the 12.
Here's my all gilt print 165.024-64




@michael e : Would love to see a lume shot of yours .. and the backside of the dial.

We don't know it all - and just remember, why shouldn't the sm300's have at least as many differences as the speedies? We just need to find and somewhat "confirm" them all

No matter what, this is a nice one! And it will set a price record (outside the auction houses anyway) for a civilian 165.024 - IMO.

 

This is the best shot I could get in natural light. I use a light box most of the time as I only get the time to take photos at night usually.
Also a lume shot after been put under a strong light source.
I wont take the dial off now, I would hate to mark the dial.
For anyone interested in this watch I guarantee that the dial is fully original and not touched up in any way.
As noted in the listing I did fill a small crack in the tritium on the minute hand only from behind, all other hands were re-lacquered from behind too.
Cheers Michael

 

Thats a great shot and a stunning watch!

 

A beauty!

 

What a Beauty not many around like that one just look at that bezel GLWS!

Cheers,
M