I sent
@kox a PM so I am hoping he chimes in soon with his expertise.
My take, since you asked for it
😉
First off, congrats with the watch. These are lovely and something very special indeed. And my comments below are not meant to put it down in any way, but just to share my somewhat informed opinion.
Secondly: I think your dial and bezel is original, for a RN300 in that serial range/production timeframe... but I don't think that they are authentic to the watch, meaning not born on this watch when it left the factory in Bienne.
Thirdly: you refer to several examples with the same dial features as your example, primarly regarding the closed 6. These examples are actually one and the same watch. Check the bezel's triangle. Anyway, I know it's the same. ID #248. Together with yours #168 these are the only two I have seen with this kind of fat/sloppy printing. Which is interesting in itself, since these two were produced within a month of each other and serial is very close to each other. On the other hand there are many more in the same range that have the "normal" dial.
Bezel:
Easy part first. As
@Dash1 stated, the bezel which it had installed during the Bonham auction is earlier. The type 3 bezel, which on the Military SM300s primarily are seen on W10's produced first half of 1967. This bezel was phased out around summer 1967, so very unlikely to have been on a august 1968 production one. The thin font blue type 6 bezel has been seen on a few, yes, and would be ok for yours in regards to originality, but it's of course not autentic to the watch in question, since we know it was added later.
Dial:
Well, the fat font on the numbers is an issue. See compare shot below. Clearly different from the normal ones. Also the 6 on the #168 and #248 are not exactly the same where they close.
The "O" in Omega is ok. The Omega logo is also ok, however a bit uneven on the inside slope.
Regarding the lume: yes, it should extend over the minut hashmarks, but I think what
@JanV was saying, is that the minut hashmarks are visible through the lume. Which is not normal and IMO because the lume was very thin applied. And yes the lume area on the 5 minute marks are not 100% evenly between the hashmarks, but that's not that unsually on the other hand.
All in all, I agree that this dial is sloppy printed and lume application not up to standard. No trace of redial, relume or touch up job, so properly just from a low quality batch/ 2. sorted. And it's very likely that it was installed/replaced by the MoD goldsmith at a service. Only serviced ones would have the MoD added fat T (tippex if you like). The dial has no trace of patina, which is highly unlikely for a RN300 with authentic parts.
Remember, most, if not all Mil SM300s had some parts changed. So there is a long way from original correct parts on the watch, to a 100% authenic example - as it left the factory. But still nice! Enjoy it.
BTW: The watch was discussed here on OF back in 17 before the seller assigned it to the Bonham auction.
https://omegaforums.net/threads/royal-navy-seamaster-300.48191/
