- Posts
- 2
- Likes
- 1
leop93
·Hi Omega Forums,
If we agree that a Speedmaster Reduced from 1993 isn’t quite “vintage” yet, I’m now considering my first real vintage Omega.
It’s a Seamaster 300 from 1961. Overall, it looks pretty appealing, aside from the missing bezel inlay and luminous dot.
What gives me pause is the dial. Something feels off - for example, the spacing between the “1” and the “2” at 12 o’clock looks wider than expected, and the proportions of the “9” also seem unusual.
I’d really appreciate your thoughts on what might be wrong with this watch. Any insights are welcome!
Thanks in advance for your help.1
Leop
If we agree that a Speedmaster Reduced from 1993 isn’t quite “vintage” yet, I’m now considering my first real vintage Omega.
It’s a Seamaster 300 from 1961. Overall, it looks pretty appealing, aside from the missing bezel inlay and luminous dot.
What gives me pause is the dial. Something feels off - for example, the spacing between the “1” and the “2” at 12 o’clock looks wider than expected, and the proportions of the “9” also seem unusual.
I’d really appreciate your thoughts on what might be wrong with this watch. Any insights are welcome!
Thanks in advance for your help.1
Leop
