@Sarandy, you keep referring to a lot of examples that would all provide good, compelling indices to the claim of your dial being correct - sadly, you do not document any. Instead, you refer to your massive collection as if that would prove anything about your judgment or knowledge - it doesn't.
You show a dial variety that no-one here accepts as correct and a number of members have shown in which areas it differs from theirs which are accepted as being correct varieties - "falling a bit short" is being unfair.
It is not up to others to prove that yours is incorrect, it is up to you to prove it is genuine. In that respect you have failed so far. That's just the way things are, both on OF and on all collector's fora.
The argument about tritium on the dial isn't going to fly. Scraping tritium off any old dial, grinding and mixing it with binding agent and reapplying would be the easiest thing to do, and it has been done a number of times.
Now - can you show other SM300s with the same dial? Others that have a more solid claim to being all correct? This is an enthusiasts forum and everyone here would
love to see a new variety uncovered, but it would have to be presented very differently from what you have done here so far.
Oh, and calling anyone an uneducated moron is not okay. An apology is in order.
