Omega SM300 Military - Advice on Authenticity

Hi All,

I have the opportunity to buy an Omega SM300 Military (see pictures), but am looking for a second opinion on how correct the watch actually is.

Apparently bought in the late 80s from a dealer, it has a modern Omega Service case and there are 2 sets of glasses and crowns with it which have been replaced, presumably during a service. Which I have been told has been carried out by Omega, but there is nothing proving so.

There is nothing I feel is obviously wrong with it (but could stand to be corrected) with the exception of the dial/hand configuration, in particular given the difference in patina.

The movement is within 2 years of the case, which dates to 1968/1970 respectively, however as I understand it, the baton hands were used in earlier models which this certainly isn't. So does anybody know if this config exists anywhere in the military versions, are these replacement hands or is the whole hand/dial set up wrong for the year?

Any help would be appreciated.

I will wait for the experts to chime in, but the circled T looks very rough (what little we can see of it). Don't like the hands either.

Case back engravings look ok from what I can see.
I think the "fluffy T" looks ok to my eyes.

The MOD def stan for dive watches was for sword hands so the hands should be wrong but they do match the dial condition imo.
Did the service case come with welded bars?

I doubt you'll get a 100% sure answer on this one but an extract from Omega would help prove something.

Personally if the extract came back as UK or MOD delivered I'd be happy leave it as is.

A well known UK collector has an earlier MOD SM300 (165.014) with HS engravings and the same hands as yours.
However it is much earlier.

Thanks for your input.

Sorry for the confusion - when I said modern service case, I meant the red zip up one the watch is returned in - as far as I know the watch case is original.

What somebody has pointed out, which I hadn't noticed is the difference in the colour of the 3 o'clock marker when compared to the other markers, which would suggest that something is not quite right.

Well it IS right next to the crown, so if the crown leaked at one point....

Tom

I wouldn't worry about the 3 o clock marker being slightly darker than the rest, it is not uncommon to have some plots slightly darker than others, esp as @VetPsychWars pointed out, it could simply be exposure to moisture on the crown side.

Joe's reply above is spot on to me..

Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of time waiting to get an extract, although if I am successful in buying then I will almost certainly be doing so.

The 3 o'clock marker doesn't appear any different and doesn't show signs of being reapplied so I think VetPsychWars' suggestion makes sense.

Well id buy it, if the price was right, just remember it could all end badly if the xtract says "Geneve" and "delivered to USA"

Good luck

Nice example !
Below is mine - a RN300, 68 issue.

Regarding the hands:
Yes, they should be gladiator hands on a 0552 - '70 issue.
However in the army version, W10, which was mostly a '67 issue, many had those stick hands and these were made before the MoD spec was implementend at Omega, a small pre-run batch for the army, if you like.
The MoD had local watchmakers assigned, who serviced the watches...and most likely the lume on the original gladiator hands had crumbled/fallen out, as it often did. So he properly had the stick hands in the drawer...and put them on. No more to it and easy to correct!

Anyway, there are lots of details to discuss on these, but the most important IMO is the serial no. and yours 2750x, is in line with the most examples I've seen on the '70 issued examples (also some with correct extract from Omega within this serial range)...
And the bezel is correct, a straight 1 type with thin font and sharp triangle, and it has the screw down crown and the correct "A" marking for that also on the caseback. And the middlecase (CB made, as most of them where) and the welded springbars also look ok. The fat "T" marking is also correct and seen on many. It's still a question if the fat T was added by the MoD watchmaker on a clean old replacement dial with no printed T, as part of service or the thin "T" printed on the dials originally was enhanced for some reason. Anyway, it is MoD correct.

I would go for it ;-)

The watch looks legit to me.
Genuine "trapezoid" dial in nice condition.
The T has to look "fluffy", whether thin or fat printed, only fake SM300 have sharp printed T's (like a Mil Sub).
Bezel is genuine and from the correct era (1969-1970).
S/N also correct for that era (1969-1970)
Case is genuine, the bars have the correct diameter.
Only the hands don't fit. However, it could be possible that the original sword hands had been swapped during an MoD service with those from an early W10 SM300 from 1967. That used to happen those days with a lot of parts, like movements, dials, cases and casebacks.

So overall: go for it!
👍

PS: funny wise my 1967 W10 SM300 has that darkened 3'o clock marker too.

For comparison.
From Marcello's collection.(RIP)

Thanks for everyone's advice.

The price was such that I couldn't walk away, and its now on my wrist 😀. Just waiting now for the extract to see what comes up.

Congrats, great catch, welcome to the club.

Keep us up to date on the extract.

Well done and congrats. 👍

Care to share how much it cost?
I'm always interested in how much these make.
A PM would suffice.

Great piece! Wear it in good health

Got this back yesterday 😀. Very pleased with the result!