Seamaster 300 165014 serial

Posts
2,421
Likes
4,675
Based on various extract from archive I have I can confirm this is 10/1965 movement and probably the ref is okay if 165.014.
Earliest 166.024 I have in my database is 1 year younger.

Well. My 165.014-64 was delivered 10/65 but has a 22xx serial. Quite a gap. As long as there is no hard proof like an extract, I'd avoid this one for more than this reason.

When has the Extract you are referring to been issued?
 
Posts
946
Likes
2,077
1963 20 million
1964 21 million
1665 22 million
1966 23-24 million
1967 25 million
1968 25-28 million
1969 28-30 million

hope this helps
 
Posts
2,421
Likes
4,675
1963 20 million
1964 21 million
1665 22 million
1966 23-24 million
1967 25 million
1968 25-28 million
1969 28-30 million

hope this helps
more than that, it confirms.
 
Posts
907
Likes
2,486
Based on various extract from archive I have I can confirm this is 10/1965 movement and probably the ref is okay if 165.014.
Earliest 166.024 I have in my database is 1 year younger.
Could you please share one of these extracts for us, so we can understand a bit more how and why you are reasoning this to be accurate. I’we never seen anything like this, so I need to see it in order to believe it.
 
Posts
733
Likes
1,457

Just for record keeping sake. Sold, quite quickly at it too.
 
Posts
2,421
Likes
4,675

Just for record keeping sake. Sold, quite quickly at it too.
Be glad it's not yours now 😀 One can argue if it's attractive or not, but that would have required different behaviour by the seller first and at least a half way self explaining, plausible watch.
 
Posts
733
Likes
1,457
Be glad it's not yours now 😀 One can argue if it's attractive or not, but that would have required different behaviour by the seller first and at least a half way self explaining, plausible watch.
Yes I am. 😀Thanks to everyone for the input and discussion. I learned a lot.
 
Posts
2,308
Likes
5,674
Is there a 100% giveaway thing you see? Or is it the overall vibe and a gut feeling?

Yes. The entire “Insert” is a dead giveaway.
Numbers are all wrong.