That was my initial impression(that is was legit one owner...). Now-
According to Neil's research "The earliest SM300 serial number for a 165.024 I am aware of is 20'308'515."
This serial is way earlier-
And according to Neil's guide, bezel is FOURTH iteration,. How does
that fit with a 193xxxxx serial?

 

I'm workin' on it

 

earlier models also supposedly had candlestick hands
sword were later.
I am just regurgitating what I have read.
Would love to hear from some knowledgeable on this.
achim? with the cryptic "...there's a reason for my guess..."
can you help us out? Anyone?

 

Yes it would have been good to know that it was the 550 cal....as it can fetch lower.... but I have seen one fetch $5200....so it's a buyers market.

 

Yes ....it is unfortunate that the Omega data-base is not complete enough to confidently phathom an answer. From what I have gathered the first SM300 prototypes were developed 57-58. Who knows when it was really released out with a few perhaps sword hands. I have also read on net that the first editions were candlestick hands also but none the guess....here is an original 1962 with sword hands and a 18 mil. #

 

Respectable Member Littleroger

It is not the watch we expect it to be, movement-wise. On top of this, the hands, bezel and maybe, even the winding-crown are questionable.

I think, our guesstimates have been made based on the fact the watch is totally factory-original and it comes with movement caliber 552, which has 24 instead of 17 jewels.

Possibly, some respectable members will want to down-grade their guesstimates.

Thank-you.

 

Everyone has a reason for their guess. Could be the first number that popped into their heads. Maybe the Watch Gods told them to try that number. I'm sticking with my number because not everyone will know about the information in this thread. It only takes 2 or 3 less knowledgeable bidders to drive the price up for any substandard watch.

 

In a discussion on another forum, one of the moderators, an Italian collector states:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/207593/thread/1255462271/Real+or+fake+Omega+seamaster+300+-
the Serial Number is very early for a ref 165024 (#20320804)

just ONE Original (with Extract of Archive) was seen in that Serial Number Range.

 

Respectable Member MyVintageOmega

Your illustration shows the the number '10' on the bezel comes with a 'nose', while the one on eBay, does not have it. Is there any difference, as to year of production of bezels?

Thank-you.

 

Member pitpro.....thanks for the info.....but that gentlemen is thwarting an opinion based on what he knows. It is clear to me that only the Omega company itself and the original sales-people of that period would know of the the final resolve.

 

In all years of the SM300.....many were pumped out...and many used outsourced parts. They are not all created equal and I have seen a mix-match of bezel designs with in all years and Cal''s.

 

Something seems seems at bit strange to me about this seller so I think I am out.

 

DSIO has closed the guesstimates......and I also created the list as a members guess would be locked in. We should have also assumed it may have been a 550 cal 17 jewels in the first place. Games on and good luck to all respectable members whom have participated.

 

Respectable Member MyVintageOmega

If that is the case, well my guesstimate remains but I think, I will not be the winner.

Thank-you.

 

The bezel insert on the watch you show 1.8m is the LAST iteration
of the insert and the one currently available on watchco clone watches.
The watch you show also has a non-original crown.
Looks to be a mish mash of gathered or service parts.
Here is what I believe to be an original 1963 SM 300 with possibly
the second hand replaced at some point.

 

Nice example and your points are well taken. When this exact watch was manufactured another Omega factory perhaps manufactured at the same time, with different components.......hence all the variations and miss-information. Only the Omega company knows the details (in full). I agree some miss-match seems to appear in the early example I posted...but bare in mind that there are many variations . My post was to also just point out mainly the 18 mil.serial # .....Best regards.

 

Sorry about the wording....what I was attempting to refer to was bezels being outsorced.....and trust me.....I'am a non-specialist. Can only learn more and more when it comes to this watch.