Omega Seamaster 300 - 165.024 (1968 ?) Can any experts give me their opinion?

Posts
468
Likes
1,165
I don't know if this watch has already been reviewed... I only have three photos; based solely on these, could someone give me their opinion? Thank you.
Cal. 552
Case 165024
Serial 24703xxx

 
Posts
13,192
Likes
22,932
Case and bezel have their share of knocks and marks but relatively sharp. The dial however is poor and unattractive. Both dial and hands should be considered for reluming which will increase how attractive it is but obviously not as valuable or sought after as one with original lume
 
Posts
468
Likes
1,165
Case and bezel have their share of knocks and marks but relatively sharp. The dial however is poor and unattractive. Both dial and hands should be considered for reluming which will increase how attractive it is but obviously not as valuable or sought after as one with original lume
Thank you, in your opinion, everything is original ? The engraving on the back aswell ?
 
Posts
13,192
Likes
22,932
Yes it’s not fake and the parts seem contemporary to one another. Serial number would help confirm.

Edit; Sorry I’ve seen the serial is provided. It looks about right for the bezel and hands
 
Posts
2,702
Likes
3,599
Bezel is in remarkably good condition for such a poor dial and hands. It’s a shame it’s not on a better looking watch. You often see these with a good-looking dial and the bezel is a mess.
 
Posts
2,921
Likes
6,097
1. this watch is original and quite honest, probably the bezel later
2.this watch is better than any watch-co
3. and better, than any relumed one
4. I like this watch and add a processed picture

 
Posts
759
Likes
804
It is unfortunately common to see the lume age like this due to water/moisture ingress, particularly on watches with the Naiad crown.

I assume this has an HF case? I agree with David’s observations regarding originality.
 
Posts
133
Likes
486
The second hand looks different from the hour and minute hands. Is this normal?