I was hoping someone could enlighten me about vintage sm300 dials without pinholes. Are these dials from a different dial maker and have no pin holes, or is the lume just obscuring them from view?

Has anyone got a picture of the back of a vintage dial without pin holes?

 

For such a well-worn watch, that dial lume looks pretty dang good. Definitely suspect to me, especially sine the hands have appear to have been worked on.

Might want to try a search, as the pin hole vs non-pin hole question has been asked before.

 

Thanks. Although I am happy to hear opinions, I am not wishing to debate the specific watches in the images, they are just internet fodder to highlight and for example.
I am convinced there are Vintage SM300 dials with original lume and no visable pinholes.
Despite the number of these watches about I cannot find any info on wether or not the pin holes are present on the reverse of these dials though.

 

The early 165.024 had no pinholes. The dates when the dials started having pinholes... well, the soon-to-be reference book will elucidate the dates but probably in the 1965ish range.

When you're looking at one of these watches keep in mind the movement serial, caseback and bezel should all come together to validate a piece.

Many many many incorrect assemblies out there.

 

Pinhole looks to be present at 12 on the first watch.

 

Thanks for the the info @Rman.

Yes I agree David, but it is so subtle, I think with certain dials you need to see the back side to be sure.

 

@Rman Would you say there is a bit of leeway for these dates? This military version appears to have no pinholes, but the crown and format would suggest it is more like 67-68?

 

Like I said I don't have dates, and I know very little about the military versions, mostly because I've been priced out!

 

It would be very interesting to see the back of a non pin hole 165.024 dial or 166.024 if anyone has one?