Hi all

I'm starting to familiarise myself with the legendary 300s and would like some input on what's has happened with the dial of this 165.024.

Looking at other examples and the main 300 resources I haven't seen other examples with such fat numbers?
Is this just a bad case of redial, fakery or are there other varations to be mindful of?

Would love a or .

Thanks a lot,
Jeppe

 

It seems to be a 165.024-63 with no Ts dial. From the photo seems to be a gilt dial. Do you have more pics?
Thank you

 

Nothing.

 

Thanks @Cuttysark. Yes that is also what it’s advertised as. Should have of course disclosed that.
The rest of the watch is consistent with a -63. it was just the fat markers I hadn’t seen before.

Interesting. The numbers look less crisp than what I have seen before, which is what concerned me. I thought maybe they had been painted over for some reason. Always learning.
Thanks for taking time to comment.

 

Some more pictures for you @Cuttysark

 

Th

These green H&M hands are also original and correct for the period.
See here: https://omegaforums.net/threads/a-c...ster-300s-same-but-slightly-different.100099/

Looks like an untouched example.

 

It's likely the scratches on the crystal distorting the dial. Looks good to me as well.

 

Beautiful and all correct watch.

 

I also feel your watch is correct but had to make this re-created image of "Yours vs Mine" as I do see the oddity of your numerals on the dial appear thicker than mine and my numerals and markers on the bezel seem thicker than yours. The candle-stick hands (all 3 seem slightly) different. None the less, fine watch and if there were any concern it is your crown in-difference. Clearly it does not protrude near as much as mine and the knurling?? I dare say your second hand looks a micro shorter. May be a slight angle in the image. Hope this image can show others whom have the SM-300 the variations of these 2 original examples. If I was to purchase the watch you show, I would only make sure that bezel has not been replaced. Seems too fine vs the condition of the rest.Cheers!

 

Your watch is a later reference/production date.
The OP/Auction watch is all correct for a 165024-63

 

Looks legit but it could be a worn out printing pad that made this effect or the distortion of the scratched crystal. A very nice watch indeed.

 

It’s the crystal. Looks

 

Thanks for all the feedback everyone.

The watch hammered yesterday and it was a 2 people bidding war from 5-9k€

Unfortunately, I could not justify spending more than the 9k€ right now, so I reluctantly had to withdraw. I think someone got a good deal.