Omega ref. 165024 Big Triangle - identification

Posts
10
Likes
1
Omega cal.552 Ref 165024
I wonder if everything is ok, my doubts are raised by the bezel and crown.
I am not proficient in this type of watches, thank you very much for your help and advice.

Best regards.
Przemyslaw
 
Posts
2,120
Likes
4,436
The problem is: You probably have to wait more than a lifetime to find a good dial..... 😉
(Original and unrestored) dials are pleasure or worries in the vintage world.
The case ist IMO OK, the hands can get gingerly restored. The bezel...I am not sure, if that is an original replacement bezel. Is the watch in your hands? So you can check the lume of the bezel....
 
Posts
10
Likes
1
The problem is: You probably have to wait more than a lifetime to find a good dial..... 😉
(Original and unrestored) dials are pleasure or worries in the vintage world.
The case ist IMO OK, the hands can get gingerly restored. The bezel...I am not sure, if that is an original replacement bezel. Is the watch in your hands? So you can check the lume of the bezel....

New photos, maybe this will help in identification?
I have a watch in my hands.
I feel like I'm going crazy...
 
Posts
2,120
Likes
4,436
The lume-view / -job is not bad for a redial 😉.....The bezel at least is later. Probably original.
The color of the indexes on the dial is horrible 😉 My opinion.
If you sum up: you will never own a complete original SM 300 if you buy this watch!

This is mine:

 
Posts
548
Likes
569
So, is it worth something, or a trash?
Thanks a lot!

it is worth the value of the movement.

This watch is completely wrong and I believe everything except the movement is fake.
 
Posts
10
Likes
1
I think the dial is original and the radium-based illuminator on the hour mark has a orange-brown patina.
I wonder if the movement (1966), dial and case fit together?
 
Posts
242
Likes
581
I think the dial is original and the radium-based illuminator on the hour mark has a orange-brown patina.
I wonder if the movement (1966), dial and case fit together?
The dial, were it an original, does not go with the movement nor the case. There was not a big triangle (BT) 165.024-64, the BT came in later non date coded 165.024 (no -number after that). If you read through the link I sent you a few messages up, it will help a little.

I think the movement is ok. The dial is not. The bezel is a replacement for sure, and as you say the crown is wrong. There is even something about the case that seems off to me...
The serial of the movement does fall into the 165.024-64 range.

I also think that you should strongly consider the advice given to you so far and look elsewhere. More examples will come up (I'm looking at them too, been searching on and off for a couple of years). The -64 is a particular favorite.

It's really good that you're asking questions here. There are lots of "gotchas" or potential trouble areas when it comes to finding a vintage watch, especially one with significant value to it like these Seamaster 300s. Look at more examples, read the guide, ask more questions, you will become more confident, trust me! 😉 Sometimes it's hard to move past the watch that's right in your hands, but if you have doubts now, those doubts will grow into big regrets when you own the watch.
 
Posts
242
Likes
581
And, (apologies for the horrible pic), but here is a 165.024-64 with an original dial, crown, hands (not sure about the seconds sweep), and the unique -64 bezel I would think that the seconds sweep hand should be white as well.
Edited:
 
Posts
10
Likes
1
And, (apologies for the horrible pic), but here is a 165.024-64 with an original dial, crown, hands (not sure about the seconds sweep), and the unique -64 bezel I would think that the seconds sweep hand should be white as well.


And, (apologies for the horrible pic), but here is a 165.024-64 with an original dial, crown, hands (not sure about the seconds sweep), and the unique -64 bezel I would think that the seconds sweep hand should be white as well.

Thanks a lot! Now I understand.
 
Posts
11,399
Likes
19,954
It’s fake.

The case is fake, the bezel is fake, the dial is fake.
 
Posts
1,503
Likes
7,785
I think the dial is original and the radium-based illuminator on the hour mark has a orange-brown patina.
I wonder if the movement (1966), dial and case fit together?

OMG. Dude, read what everyone is telling you. If you want to throw your money away on garbage, I guess we can't stop you. But, come on man.