Hi there I´m new to this site but not to the watchworld. Been intrested in watches since early 90's. Gone through Omega Speedmasters, Rolex Subs, IWC and other nice watches. After a couple of years of no watchflipping I´m getting back. So here is one of my latest buys. Just wanted to check with you who know much more of these than I do. Is it legite? Is the dial original or a service dial? Whats the small holes at the 12 and 6 markers? What I know from the seller is that the watch was bought by a relative to him in -66. He was apperantly also a diver and used the watch on a daily basis. The seller thought that the dial was replaced sometime around the 80' and that the plexi is an aftermarket. The back is showing a lot of wear. Hard to see anything on it. I looked at the plexi and it got the small Omega sign on it. Also the dial has the T Swiss made T sign at the bottom. Well here are som photos and I hope someone can share some light over this stunning watch. Did I mentioned that it keeps the time as good as my Tudor Pelagos.
The dial looks original to me (or replaced very early on). The small holes at 12 and 6 o'clock were part of the manufacturing process for these dials actually verifying originality. The rest of the watch looks legit - crown may be a later replacement but that is somewhat less important.
The crystal looks like it has an Omega symbol on it, so it's probably original. The movement has seen some moisture, so that would be a concern for me. Cheers, Al
Here is a closeup, hard to see but you should be able to see the T swiss made T. And also a pic of the caseback.
How can you tell about the moisture? The watch works excellent keeping time within - 10sec a day. Thanks guys for all info.
Here is a SM 300 serial # 247254xx Look at where the "W" in SWISS is compared to your dial. "W" is half under the 6 lume marker on yours, none of the "W" is under on the # 247254xx Here's my opinion- Your watch has a real Omega Tritium dial.(luminova service replacement markers would be smoother and puffy) The story that it was replacement in 1980 sounds correct. There is no way the watch had water in it, and the hands have zero oxidation, as Archer points out. So I think they were replaced also. There are 4 or 5 different bezel insert styles over the production run and yours matches # 247254xx so that is OK for sure. Caseback looks fine Crown is wrong, looks like a Speedmaster crown. Easy fix. Nice watch. Enjoy
The ability of a watch to keep time is a very poor indicator of the need for servicing. Certainly if it keeps time poorly that can be a strong indicator it needs to be serviced, but the opposite is not true - a watch can keep time quite well and still need to be serviced....I see this often. Cheers, Al
I think there is no question the movement had moisture. I would tend to agree that given the degree of damage to the movement you would expect some degradation in the hands that you don't see so the hands could be replacements but it is also possible that most of the moisture was confined to the movement and that the hands remained relatively spared.
No, sorry , I was agreeing with you. The regulator is corroded. Dial replacement was probably bc of water damage, he was a diver after all
I feel the dial is a replacement. There is no usual patina of any sort. The dials lume does not match that of the original hands.
I've seen several examples where the lume in the hand does not match the lume in the dial and I am reasonably sure (and in a few cases really sure) that the dial is original and the hands have not been relumed. The pattern I've seen is like this one - better preserved lume in the dial and more aged lume in the hands.
Got my watch back after some tlc. Looks a lot better now. Here is a wristshot also, I absolutely love it specially with a tropicstrap.