Forums Latest Members
  1. maeranha Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    10
    Likes
    0
    Dear,
    yes, the glass looks really stressed a lot, but my question is about the hands. Can they be original ? Other issues to consider ?
    Any expert information welcome before money burning....thanks
    greetings
    Üeter
     
    38E6BA7A-F31C-4A05-9267-BEC3EC9EA47E.png
  2. calalum Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    1,464
    Likes
    7,712
    I would want to see a clear dial pic, up close, probably without the crystal. I also don't like the bezel print. Both the font and the color seem off, at least compared to many that I have seen. And does the crown diameter seem off?
     
  3. maeranha Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    10
    Likes
    0
    That‘s all pictures from Chrono, can‘t deliver pictures without glass, sorry....
     
    544808D2-AF16-403E-A507-C9C974C3DCCF.png F6E7C940-574C-43E5-A961-863B38CCFCCD.png 53C09428-0738-4DBA-B02E-521A11F15655.png 0C24D191-634E-4018-8606-C600383920EA.png
  4. flqt-9000 Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    902
    Likes
    1,423
    Crown is later replacement, bracelet is not correct in my opinion.
     
  5. bloomy Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    299
    Likes
    582
    The lume @ 12/3/6 seems to have some abnormal discoloration that would be a no go for me. Mold? The bezel as stated, has lost the lume as well. For that price I would not accept one in that condition, I think for a little more you can find a much better version. I would be patient.
     
  6. simonsays Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    1,344
    Likes
    1,900
    I would say everything is correct except for the crown, which should be screw down, so perhaps the tube is missing too? Not a big deal anyway.
    The main issue is the patina which has not aged gracefully. The dial and hands show some mould and the colours have not matched. In the hand the watch may look ok, but those photos don't look very attractive.
     
  7. bigsom Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    1,312
    Likes
    10,509
    Hands wrong and crown wrong I think. Also that lume is quite dirty, there are better examples.
     
  8. calalum Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    1,464
    Likes
    7,712
    What is the asking price?
     
  9. maeranha Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    10
    Likes
    0
    Thanks
     
  10. tomvox1 Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    1,193
    Likes
    1,229
    These don't have screw down crowns unless they have been retrofitted, as is often seen on the Royal Navy versions. Original crown should be the Naiad push in type. This crown does not look correct, though, as has been mentioned (diameter too small).
    Also agree with the others who don't like the hour & minute hands and bezel. Bezel especially seems strange to me -- pointed "4??"
    Best,
    T.
     
  11. Baz9614 Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    2,068
    Likes
    23,119
    I believe both crowns are possible if an early 1967 production?
    205AF1A9-5F7F-4CCC-89D6-E3505492A862.png
    Borrowed from http://thatwatchandmore.blogspot.com/2013/03/buying-vintage-omega-seamaster-300.html?m=1
     
  12. tomvox1 Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    1,193
    Likes
    1,229
    That is interesting and a good read -- thanks for the link!
    I suppose if the majority of these screw-in crown SM 300s date from 1967 and later then that would tend to corroborate factory installation or at least dealer upgrade.
    That said it looks like even cursory search brings up a lot of 1967 & 1968 SM 300 165.024 still with the Naiad crown. So perhaps it was more of a customer request/recommended upgrade situation and not really across the entire model line from the factory. Certainly Omega had learned by that time from their experience supplying the Royal Navy that their push in crown was not really reliable for serious diving.
    So as thorough that article is I would still like to see more research and a larger sample size. I do now accept that both crown types could be possible from (late?) 1967 onwards but maybe not that a Naiad crown from that late is also necessarily "incorrect."
    Best regards & thanks again,
    Tom
     
    Baz9614 likes this.
  13. Dgercp Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    1,070
    Likes
    1,453
    Other than the crown, I think all original. Problem is it looks like the yellow has been washed off the bezel and lume is getting mouldy. Not such a pretty look so it depends on price.
     
  14. calalum Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    1,464
    Likes
    7,712
    The number fonts on the bezel don't bother you guys? In addition to all of the other issues, of course.
     
  15. Rman Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    2,407
    Likes
    9,479
    No not at all. Makes sense that moisture entered the case through the loss of the old crown and degraded the hands and dial.

    Movement may have been swapped at some point you’d have to pull an extract to know for sure.
     
  16. tomvox1 Nov 13, 2018

    Posts
    1,193
    Likes
    1,229
    Actually I now think it is a reasonable match for this type of (later) bezel insert (assuming it is also legit) except with the underlying lume of the OP's being somewhat washed away and distorting the numerals:

    SM300BezelLate.jpg
    (Pic from LunarOyster sold archive)

    Note also that the watch pictured has a 27.9 mil movement SN (ca. 1968) and still the Naiad crown.
    There is still something about the hands on the OP's Chrono24 example I find odd. Minute hand seems too long maybe?
    Best,
    T.