Looking for some help with my dad’s seamaster mil

[Roth35]

Looking for some help with my dads seamaster 300. The case back markings don’t seem to conform to type, so I’m wondering what they could be I’ve added a picture. Any help appreciated

 

[Dan S]

Could you perhaps give an introduction and provide some background and the results of your research to date. Was your father issued this watch in the military? Is he a collector? Do you have an extract? What are your specific concerns, do you just think it's fake? Do you have photos of the inside?

Edited: Feb 21, 2023

 

[Roth35]

Thanks, my father was in the army yes served from about 60-82, extract from archive applied for. Unfortunately as he passed away a decade ago I have no way of confirming more details, was certainly given to him whilst he was in the army as part of his service, but as I say markings on case back don’t seem to correspond to standard. Just wondering about what they could be. Has been valued by Bonhams but then valuation changed as apparently a collector pointed out markings on case are not quite in keeping.

many thanks

 

[Dan S]

R Roth35

Thanks, my father was in the army yes served from about 60-82, extract from archive applied for. Unfortunately as he passed away a decade ago I have no way of confirming more details, was certainly given to him whilst he was in the army as part of his service, but as I say markings on case back don’t seem to correspond to standard. Just wondering about what they could be. Has been valued by Bonhams but then valuation changed as apparently a collector pointed out markings on case are not quite in keeping.

As you noted, those specific markings are not familiar to me, but I believe that 0552 refers to British Navy, not Army, IIRC. Anyway, sit tight, there are some people on the forum who know these mil-spec SM300s inside and out. The information from the extract may also be helpful.

 

[Roth35]

Thanks yes was in the army but 0552 is navy not army (w10). The issue is that, as I’m understand it, the inscription is unusual and does not end in a date so after A/ there should be a year date, whereas my watch states A/26008. As I say Bonhams valued it as correct then got cold feet with their valuation and more than halved it.

 

[DON]

Just to be 100% sure. Check this forum out. It's a military watch forum

https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?2-Main-Forum

 

[Roth35]

DON

Just to be 100% sure. Check this forum out. It's a military watch forum

https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?2-Main-Forum

Thanks have signed up just waiting for confirmation but if anyone has any idea on markings that would be grand

 

[Dan S]

R Roth35

Thanks have signed up just waiting for confirmation but if anyone has any idea on markings that would be grand

If your inbox isn't full of messages asking to buy your watch, that's not a good sign.

 

[Joe K.]

As far as I can tell, the watch looks like a legit issued SM300. The main issue as you pointed out is with the markings on the case back not conforming to what is typically seen on MOD issued watches. I am sure you googled the numbers and have seen pictures of the typical layout. Your markings do not conform to this standard. Also, early on the MoD milled the case back to shave off the factory markings before stamping new numbers. At some point they stopped this practice and did not bother removing factory markings. The fact that the markings were removed from your case back could suggest this is an early version, but again the markings don't conform with the standard.

Having said all this, Maybe this case back was a MoD replacement? I don't know the answer to that.

 

[Roth35]

Joe K.

As far as I can tell, the watch looks like a legit issued SM300. The main issue as you pointed out is with the markings on the case back not conforming to what is typically seen on MOD issued watches. I am sure you googled the numbers and have seen pictures of the typical layout. Your markings do not conform to this standard. Also, early on the MoD milled the case back to shave off the factory markings before stamping new numbers. At some point they stopped this practice and did not bother removing factory markings. The fact that the markings were removed from your case back could suggest this is an early version, but again the markings don't conform with the standard.

Having said all this, Maybe this case back was a MoD replacement? I don't know the answer to that.

Thanks a lot for the response, watch has been in my family since I can remember and I was born in 72 so I can only imagine it is legitimate. Bonhams certainly thought so.we are waiting for extract back which will confirm something, if it is a Mod replacement hard to know how I would find that out though?

thanks again

 

[padders]

Are you sure this watch was actually issued to your father or could he have just purchased it in an Army&Navy store? These are some of the most widely faked and messed about Omega models and without an extract I wouldn't go near one personally. If the auction house enquired with the Museum or formally requested and extract and it was declined, that would explain why they got rapidly colder feet with it. If it arrives and confirms MOD delivery then I can't see how there is an issue and it should sell well, though maybe not to a perfectionist who wants a date on the back.

Edited: Feb 23, 2023

 

[Roth35]

padders

Are you sure this watch was actually issued to your father or could he have just purchased it in an Army&Navy store? These are some of the most widely faked and messed about Omega models and without an extract I wouldn't go near one personally. If the auction house enquired with the Museum or formally requested and extract and it was declined, that would explain why they got rapidly colder feet with it. If it arrives and confirms MOD delivery then I can't see how there is an issue and it should sell well, though maybe not to a perfectionist who wants a date on the back.

Thanks for your response was interesting, doubt it would have been faked in 1969 when I understand he got it but who knows? I know some navy watches were issued to army and vice versa. Waiting for extract as we speak just not sure re numbers on back. For context Bonhams valuation was 40-60k and was auctioned unsuccessfully at this price without extract in December.

 

[padders]

Let us know how the extract comes back. It shouldn't take too long, the turn around for the pdf version which they send first is only a couple of weeks or so AFAIK, the paper cert rather longer. The value will all hinge on that really.

 

[Engee]

 

[Roth35]

Just heard back from auction house that:

We have actually just this week heard back from Omega confirming that the Extract will be released shortly. This is a promising start as normally if the numbers don’t match their records they refuse to issue an extract full stop

so hopefully good news at least on something

 

[Joe K.]

I think this is true to an extent. For a military watch collector the markings are one of the most important aspects of the watch. So while having an extract with delivery to the MoD should help with value, the markings on the back will remain an issue unless they can be linked to the MoD. Without this, I don't see the watch attaining full market value (whatever that may be). I think your best bet is to ask for input on forums such as MWR. Perhaps there is someone out there with more information on this style of markings.

padders

Let us know how the extract comes back. It shouldn't take too long, the turn around for the pdf version which they send first is only a couple of weeks or so AFAIK, the paper cert rather longer. The value will all hinge on that really.

 

[Roth35]

Extract from archive highlights watch as correct and bearing Royal Navy mark of 0552

 

[Roth35]

Just dawn on me that 26008 corresponds with the production date given on the extract of 26 of august 1968!

 

[size11s]

very good extract result. Congratulations

 

[Dan S]

R Roth35

Just dawn on me that 26008 corresponds with the production date given on the extract of 26 of august 1968!