Redone dial on 165.024?

jeppehh

what's has happened with the dial of this 165.024.

jeppehh

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.

MyVintageOmega

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!