Newbie looking for an opinion on a SM300

Hi all, I’m a long time listener but first time poster.

I’ve been collecting vintage watches on and off for a few years but recently got the Omega bug and purchased a SM300.

Prior to buying the piece I had my suspicions around the blue Bakelite bezel but would value an opinion from this community. The 166.073 IDF sports a very similar bezel so wondered if it’s interchangeable with the 165.024?

Also, I would value your opinion on the dial. Not sure if it’s been relumed, if so they’ve done a stellar job.

I’ve requested an archive from Omega so will be interesting to see what comes back.

Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide.

Lovely watch. Although the bezels look the same they are not compatible. They look quite different on the reverse side.

With regards to the lume it is impossible to tell from a picture. The reaction to light, if original and correct should be a short intense glow quickly fading to nothing after a minute or so in the dark for this watch.

Hi @tad and welcome onboard...

As said, the blue bezels are not interchangeable. Read more about that here.

And sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you have bought a franken. It didn't leave the factory in this state - at all.
I would try to return the watch if possible.

Here's why:

1. Bezel was seen on the Bonham RN300 014/68 in their june 2017 auction. Lot 128. Lots of problems with that one, to early serial and reference etc. - and it didn't sell.

2. Fast forward to last year, where the Bonham lot was sold off in parts on the bay, but with another movment/serial (yours !) And seller stated that Omega couldn't make an extract for it. Was ended earlier this month.

3. And yours turn up shortly after with that blue bezel and that movement in another case, other hands/dial (or the same, just relumed) etc. - and seller claiming the watch is all original ... perhaps seller didn't knew, yeah right 🤦

If you like it (it does look good!), keep it.... but if you care about authenticity, return it.

I really appreciate you taking time out to reply with such a comprehensive response. Authenticity really matters to me so I will be returning the watch. Thanks again for your help. Great community

Seller has agreed to take the watch back. Thanks again, I owe you a beer if you are ever in the U.K.

Howdy, hope everyone is keeping safe and well. After a failed attempt at acquiring an authentic SM300 I’ve managed to get my grubby paws on this piece. Special thanks goes out to a fellow member of this forum for offering it up for sale. I was deliberating on buying just the head but glad I opted for the 1039 bracelet with 516 end links. The seller also supplied an original flat foot crown at reasonable cost. Wondering how easy it would be to swap it out - any advice on this would be gratefully received. Also, I would be interested in your opinions as to why there’s a greenish tint to the lume and why it hasn’t aged like others I have seen. Wondering if it’s because it hasn’t been worn much?

Cheers

Can you please share the date of production from the EoA? This will tell us more on the greenish lume, as this is usually seen on later 300’s. Please also can you see if it’s a HF or CB case? To me it looks like a HF case. And please also can you tell us the serial, just leave out the last three or four digits. I’m surprised it hasn’t a screw-in crown if it’s a later serial / production piece.

Hi, It’s a HF case. Serial starts with 24.224 and the EOA states it was produced first half of 1967. The crown is a service crown by the looks of it. Cheers

Here’s a picture of the crown

Hi, It’s a HF case. Serial starts with 24.224 and the EOA states it was produced first half of 1967. The crown is a service crown by the looks of it. Cheers

I found this example on the forum. The bezel insert and dial/lume look very similar bar the circled T.

To me this info from the EoA would have me considering that this watch has some issues about it’s originality. All parts are original to SM300’s, yes, but i don’t think all parts came from the factory mounted on this same watch.

At least the bezel is not correct for a -67 produced SM300, but correct for -69 and later.

The greenish lume on the dial i have only seen on the late -69 to seventies SM300’s, but this is no shure bet they couldn’t be seen on earlier ones also?

And there’s a very short transition (few examples) from the push-in crown to screw down crown with Big Triangle dial and sword hands, and BT dials with sword hands fitted on HF cases.

So maybe this one saw a new dial and hands installed in a service later in the seventies? And a newer bezel replaced at some point way later if the original was not in line with the condition of the dial?

Usually this would happen if the watch had some water damage from diving activities destroying the dial and hands, and being replaced in a service.

Do you see if the hands are slightly curved / dome shaped?
Some pictures of the movement could maybe help assess this scenario?

Usually the bezel degraded later in time from air bubbles being trapped between the bezel and metal and “pushing” the bezel to come loose from its gluing?
This would show up as a negative appearance much later than the damage on a dial.

Let’s see what the others here on OF thinks also.
There’s a vast amount of knowledge here amongst members.

Hands seem to be slightly curved. Here are some shots of the backplate and movement.

Closer shot of dial and bezel

Wide triangle bezel with no serif 1 would be correct for 69-71. 1967 would have a slope or flat serif 1, asymmetric curly 3, and flat top 4. HF case and inner caseback seem correct for very early 1967. Sword hands and short seconds hand look good. Not certain about lume

correct crown is naiad 24 teeth crown with a 3 pointed star in the middle

@tad
I think you should have a look at this link.
It's your watch, right? Sold from ukvintagewatches.
1. so your watch has been through the same seller as your OP watch ... just saying 😒
2. but as you can see in the add, the seller does state that the dial and hands are NOS ones installed in the 80'ies... and this happend to a lot of SM300's BTW, so not authentic to the watch, like also the crown, bezel etc.



3. Could you post a better picture of the inside and outside caseback. I have never seen a HF 165.024 inside caseback look like the one you posted above. And it's also not the same as the one in the ukvintagewatches add

Hi,

Yes it’s the same watch. I made the connection last night and picked up the difference in the case back. I’ve attached a better photo. Looking at it under a loupe the ‘5’ looks unusual.

Cheers

To me that looks like someone's tried to make a 165.024 caseback out of a 166.024 caseback:

Yep, I agree it looks suspicious .

exactly...
There were some 165.024 service casebacks with both SP and SP2 markings, but only with SP in this form