I have to say it's pretty upsetting to come on here to share a new purchase, then to have my piece scrutinized to the point that it's authenticity is being questioned, when this very watch has been used as a reference years before the bonhams auction, on the military watch forums as being correct.
I can certainly understand that, especially given that it won’t have been a cheap purchase, but IF there is something wrong then wouldn’t you rather know ? And for collective knowledge it’s better that facts are out there in the public domain.
And I’m not sure you could describe the MWR post as being a reference for correctness and originality. I think it’s just a compilation of variations that have been seen.
I have to say it's pretty upsetting to come on here to share a new purchase, then to have my piece scrutinized to the point that it's authenticity is being questioned, when this very watch has been used as a reference years before the bonhams auction (seen here https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/sho...-Military-Seamaster-300-Dial-Reference-Thread) , on the military watch forums as being correct, no one had anything bad to say about the dial then. Also, I would like to think a major auction house knows a proper dial when they see one.
Sorry for starting this, my intention was not to question the authenticity - especially considering that I'm new to vintage watches and most of what I've learned comes from OF, I don't feel like I have a right to question anything. I can only ask... questions. 😉
BT crossing minute markers seems to be ruled out I guess.
The "closed" 6 is what caught my eye, because this is something that I've found in some "buyer's guide" for SM300 (even though I'm not even close to buying one anytime soon 🤦) - that neither 6 nor 9 should be done this way. Might be wrong, perhaps? I'll try to find that page.
Just a thought, how was the numbers and text printed on the SM300 dials around this era?
There was a thread on Rolex forum that the pad used for printing some dials wore down rapidly and thus making the print on later made dials “bolder” and not as sharp as the pads wore out.
Could this give us an explanation?
Personally I think the dial is okay, just a bit sloppy printing. The bezel that was on the watch previously is an earlier type not later. I guess a previous owner swapped it to what they thought was more correct for an issued 0552.
This is watch that was "inspired" by the Seamaster Military: