My first test - Seamaster authenticity (advice needed)

Good evening, folks.

As this is my first 'I'm curious about authenticity' post, I thought I'd muffle the audible groan I just heard (not to mention about one thousand 'here we go again' eye rolls) by taking a stab at answering my own question. After all, this style - and year - are at top of my must have list. Maybe it's a legit specimen, but I have my doubts.

I suspect I'll get a heap of stuff wrong; nevertheless, rather than simply rely solely on your valuable expertise and noob benevolence, I'll try to employ some of what I hope I've learned since my skulking began over the weekend, and hope I don't score too poorly. I very much appreciate your assistance - and ongoing teaching. And for the record, your enthusiasm is magnificent. So (deep breath) here goes.

- dial looks like it was made yesterday, not 1962
- caseback. No Hippocampus (although an engravable back may have been possible?).
- Polished movement seem inconsistent with case, crown etc.
- lumed hands; non lumed markers?
-19xx appears consistent with year (1962)
-admittedly, I'm confused by 14905 (9 as third number? Thought it went to 8?)

Looking to learn as much as I can over the next few weeks, months and years.

Cheers,

Michael

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/MENs-1962-VINTAGE-OMEGA-SEAMASTER-DE-VILLE-AUTO-StSTEEL-ORIG-DIAL-550-Adj-2-Pos/332397704210?_trkparms=aid=222007&algo=SIM.MBE&ao=2&asc=20170831090034&meid=2912a77fc0e149cfa16b076863750922&pid=100005&rk=2&rkt=6&mehot=pp&sd=172871200013&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851

The markers are lumed .

Thanks, everyone. Much appreciated. Helps immeasurably. Now, any thoughts about the case back? Cheers!

Missed that. They are indeed.