Naiad crown for 165.024?

I suppose my 166024 has never had a screw-down crown. Perhaps one of the first pieces?

Pictures and serial number?
Nonetheless, Omega used the SD crown on the date models from the start, that is from 1968 production, so if you what to go "original", then that's the way. But normal/naiad crown will of course work just fine. IMO just no need to source an expensive vintage one, when by the end of the day, it wasn't what the watch left the factory with.

- 166024-67 SC
- Serial 26940xxx

It seems never polished. It is very strange that someone had change crown from screw down to an downgrade not screw down.

Maybe they changed that crown to a non Naiad crown when the watch was serviced . Late 67 early 68 have screwdown crown. Maybe your watch is early 67?

That's a late 1968 production. Again, would have had a SD crown.
Nothing unsual in a "wrong" crown change at service. Stranger things have happend through the years. Perhaps the customer shredded the threads, was tired of the SD action and wanted the more convenient pull out crown. Who knows...

This type ?

Had no 166024 naiad crown?
No chance that was my 166024 born without screw-down crown?
Its case doesn't seem "tranformed"...

Does anyone know anything about it?

It might be possible that the complete case has been swapped in the past.

If you post a picture of the Inner caseback, I'll try and give you a more elaborated answer... need to see the case markings.

Totally unrelated: I know someone that has a crown like this, but has no idea of value (neither do I).
Someone can chime in & give an approximate value ?

Ok, thank you.
I'll post the inner caseback as soon as possible!

Here they are. Tank you for your help.

Can anyone help me?
Thank you!

Ok then. Let's recap a bit on whether yours could have been delivered with the normal non-screw down ~ "naiad" crown or should have had the SD crown.
@Archer's answer reminded me of the whole SP discussion. There's no doubt that the 16x.024's cases will work with both a naiad crown and a screw-down crown. The tube just have to be the right one. The SP in the inner caseback stands for "Special", in Omega terms that meant upgraded parts to help waterproofness. In regards to SM300's that relates to the crown (screw-down in this case).

Now, the SP marking was added to the caseback on the 166.024-67 and 166.024 non subreference. But far from all had the marking (see the examples below). Most 166.024-67s actually doesn't (like yours #1) and most 166.024's does. Does that mean that watches without the SP marking should have the naiad crown and with the SP marking should have the SD crown? Not in my opinion. The SP moniker was used with a somewhat loose hand in regards to serial range and production dates, and wasn't fully introduced in the casebacks before the 166.024 non subreference. And there's no doubt in my mind that Omega introduced the SD crown on the SM300 in 1968. Also on none SP cases. But when thinking it over (thanks @Archer for the wake-up), I was a bit to categorical. It's absolutely possible that the date models from perhaps early 1968 production could have had the naiad crown in this transition period towards the SP marking and SD crown (the same actually goes for the non-date model, 165.024 - but not in regards to the SP marking, here only old service/"reycled" casebacks for the 165024 was marked - well, so it seems anyway).

So, what to do with your crown? Well, I still believe that your's had the SD crown originally, because of it being a late 68 production and that's what I would put on it. But that's just my opinion. If you want a naiad crown for it, and want an originally late one, then the flat footed C2 one below. It can be debated if C3's are old service crowns or some of the very late SM300's were delivered with this type, so if you can't find a flat footed one, go for one of those. The C3sn is the new replacement crown (non-SD).
Sizes for these are about 6,7x3,3mm, still with stem 0,9mm. It's only the old naiad crown with the merc symbol (and some of the very early C2's) which are noticeable smaller at 6,3x3,0mm.

Perhaps not a straightforward yes/no answer to your question but hope it helps you decide nonetheless 😉

wow!
thank you very much!
I'll go for the better than I find.