Omega Seamaster 300 165.024 from 1966. Opinions?

Posts
108
Likes
448
Dear all,

I would like to receive feedback from experts of this reference. Serial is 263xxxxx, so it should be 1966. The glass has many scratches and no logo, but it could be the original one (looks very old as the watch). The bezel has signs but no crack. It is compatible with the serial, according to my knowledge. The three hands have a uniform patina. The dial and the caseback seem original to me. The crown is naiad 24 teeth. The CB case looks unpolished to me.





Edited:
 
Posts
736
Likes
771
Crown is a service replacement. Watch looks polished to me but not too bad. It is particularly evident when looking at the caseback, which is soft.

Bezel appears consistent with the case reference and serial, but holds the watch back condition wise. You mention no cracks, but there seem to be quite a few noticeable cracks in the bezel insert.

The dial appears to be a 1970s service dial. Not sure about the hands. I thought I read somewhere that baton hands ended in 24 mil, but that may not be true.
Edited:
 
Posts
736
Likes
771
Not sure if the above is what you wanted to hear, but I will say, it is nice to see a genuine sm300 posted here after so many fake ones.
 
Posts
2,885
Likes
6,031
The dial appears to be a 1970s service dial. Not sure about the hands. I thought I read somewhere that baton hands ended in 24 mil, but that may not be true.
Not true ;-) Seen in 27 mil, incl. big triangle
 
Posts
736
Likes
771
Not true ;-) Seen in 27 mil, incl. big triangle
27 mil gets you into 1969 production. That seems much to late for baton hands. Where have you seen that?
 
Posts
736
Likes
771
Here is a detail of the crown. How did you spot it’s a service one?


Easily identified by the later logo (non flat foot). These came with both 24 and 32 teeth
 
Posts
2,450
Likes
5,422
Do you have pictures of the movement?
And I do think that 2.6 mil is to late for a 66...
 
Posts
108
Likes
448
Do you have pictures of the movement?
And I do think that 2.6 mil is to late for a 66...
Movement is a 552 ser. 2630xxxx
 
Posts
2,450
Likes
5,422
552 is the correct movement, but 2.63 mil could not be a 1966 production.
I have one with serial nr 24.22xxxx, and that one is on the border between 1966 and 1967.
 
Posts
736
Likes
771
.550 27 mill.

Definitely good to keep in mind. I’ll stay on the lookout for more examples. Interesting that your extract says “super luminous indexes” vs “luminous indexes”. I’ve seen “super” added somewhat randomly. Would be curious if anyone here knows why.

That being said, I don’t know if the extracts lend much to this type of question. These watches have a habit of being messed with a lot. Not surprising for a 50+ year old dive watch, especially considering they were supposedly worth in the hundreds of dollars two decades ago.