As promised a few weeks back, I have got photos of the caseback and inside of the watch. As I said, this was my granddad's watch. He is Tom Fletcher, founder of Nottingham Analogue and an expert turntable maker. He was a big fan of Omega and even called one of his turntable's Omega.

Here is a link that covered his passing and his work http://www.adventuresinhifiaudio.com/20/10/2010/tom-fletcher-passing-of-an-analogue-legend/

After talking to my own dad about the watch, he found paper work for me related to the watch and I have included photographs of those documents here.

I have put in hours of research online trying to find this watch with this dial, and as yet I have been unsuccessful. The bezel looks in fantastic condition and the dial and bezel look equally patinated. The lume on the dial also appears equally aged when compared tot he lume on the bezel.

I have emailed Omega regarding the dial and they have acknowledged the message, promising that they will reply shortly. For selling purposes, I would appreciate any information on the dial.

Thanks for your help previously and thanks in advance for any future assistance.
Kind regards,
Antoin.

 

Interesting watch and heirloom.
The serial 2249x is an early, but correct range for the reference 165.024-64. Production date was late 1965 or very early 1966, so it took some time before it sold ;-)
Your dial was meant for a reference 14755 or an early 165.014 (production no later than 1963). The first 165.024 was the subreference -63 (produced from 1964) and didn't have this dial. And there were no transition period between a 165.014-62 and a 165.024-64. This dial was never found originaly on a 165.024 IMO and yours properly just had the dial changed at service, because the watchmaker had it in his parts box or your granddad just liked the design of the earlier one.
Furthermore the bezel on your watch was much likely also changed, since the 165.024-64 and especially the early ones, had the type 2 bezel below and not the type 3 like yours. Again, properly just done at service, since the quality of the type 2 was quite poor.

Nonetheless a nice watch and many will find great value in the parts, matching number/papers etc, but it didn't leave the factory in this configuration - IMO.

 

It is a beautiful looking watch. If it has any sentimental value I would just keep it as is.
It might be hard to value with a dial that is clearly wrong for this model, but a rare and beautiful dial nonetheless.
As Kox says, bezel a little late for this model but I think that not a big deal.

@kox , curious about your comment about the type 2 bezel being of poor quality. I know this one is rare, but is that
because they just did not last?, or just made in low numbers? Were they made of different or lesser material? Thanks.

 

I meant to add, the bracelet is 1506, marked as the first quarter of 1965. (marked 16)
On the lume, the photograph makes it look much greener than it is. This is because to capture the lume on my bridge camera, I needed to set a high ISO, which made the lume look extremely bright.

 

An interesting situation where the "wrong" dial is worth more than the "right" dial. That earlier dial has a lot of value.

 

To my untrained eye, the hands look perfectly patinated with the dial and the bezel. In my opinion the hands, bezel and dial compliment each other well and work well together on this watch. Thanks for your response.

 

Thanks for your feedback much appreciated.

 

Thanks for your feedback. We have a lot of my granddad's other things, including one of the turntables he built himself, so the watch does not have as much sentimental value as those. We also have his extensive record collection which meant a great deal to him. Although, I am starting to fall in love with the watch

 

Not really. The OPs dial is correct for a very limited range of SM300. Only the caliber 552 14755s (and early 165014-62). This assumes that the dial is indeed a caliber 552 dial and not a doctored 501 dial. A caliber 552 dial will not fit the early caliber 501 2913s, 1st generation SM300.

The correct dial for the OPs Watch is probably in greater demand as it is correct for many more SM300 references. 165014-62, 63 and the entire range of 165024 and 165.024

Similar to the bezel values of the DON vs 220. 220 is much rarer than the DON but limited to a small range of Speedies. The DON, needed on many references, is worth more.

 

Another picture

This shows the inner working.

 

Nice analogy

 

The type 2 was produced in both 1965 and 1966, but the production numbers (read: examples spotted by me over the years!) of the 165024-64 were not anywhere as high as the 66/67 production of the non subreference 165024 HF cased one (with the type 3 bezel) which is the most common reference ... but I wouldn't call a 165024-64 rare. But yes, a correct good condition type 2 bezel on these are rare! Very often you see the more common type 6 or type 3 bezels mounted on these, since they were more readily avaible (and therefore used as service parts). The 165024-63 with the type 1 bezel is however quite rare - but almost allways seen with the correct original bezel.
All of the SM300 bezels were exposed to bad quality or should I say, design. The inlay was made of a clear plastic mold that was filled with luminous material and a black "plastic" compound. It just didn't hold up very well, since the toplayer often cracked and water would creep inside and "lift"+"eat" the insert ~ exposing it to more water and more damage.
It's just my experiance that some of the 10 bezel types for the 16x.024's are more prone to this kind of damage (on otherwise comparable watchconditions), and that's especially the type 2 and also type 4.
IMO all bezels were made the same way and with the same basematerials, but I'm not sure if the supplier was the same throughout. Anyway, production quality of the many different batches was properly not that consistent over the years

One of the horrors below.

 

Thank you @kox and @gemini4 for the insight
Here is my 165024-64 with presumably the correct type 2 bezel (serial late 22xxx). The bezel is somewhat beat up, but then, so is the dial/lume.

 

So you say a 2915/2998 dial is worth less than a 145.xxx dial?

 

Thanks for all the help so far, much appreciated. I read Jack's SM300 guide and it has helped a lot with further identifying the watch. I would certainly recommend reading it for anyone at all interested in the Seamaster 300.

Antoin

 

looks great!

 

Got around to measuring the crown today and used Jack's guide for reference. The measurements (diameter and depth) indicate that it is a Naiad crown. We also counted 24 notches on the crown, again indicative of a naiad crown. Again, I'd like to thank Jack for his informative guide (http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...mega-Seamaster-300-including-Military-watches). Anyone with an interest in the SM300 should take a look at the guide. It is very helpful. It also has a great reference for bezel's and identifying bezels by year is as easy as a,b,c,d,e.

 

Antoin

The crown on your watch is quite different than the original crowns mentioned in Jack’s research. Original crowns have a flat foot Omega raised logo. Yours is a turned up foot design indicative, i believe, of a later replacement crown.

 

I will try get a better photo tomorrow. The camera doesn't get a very clear image at night with low light.

 

Tomorrow was 3 weeks ago.