Seamaster 300 165024-63 Dial, Case correct?

[HarryHeart]

After nearly buying an overprice 1967 SM300 some time ago, I want to take another chance to find a honest one which is worth its money. This one is from a retired watchmaker who bought it some years ago. It's an Omega Seamaster 300 165024-63 HF with a very low serial number 20.672.xxx from 1964.

Here are the KeyFacts, I would really appreciate your honest opinion. Thank you very much for help!

The - possibly - good that I try to validate with your help:
- Dial and lume seems to be original to me, but with only theoretical knowledge for me it's very difficult to have a strong opinion on that. From what I read this does not necessarily have to be incorrect. But this is an important point where I need some help.
- Case should be a HF, but difficult to see for me.
- Matching extract of the archives for early 20.672.xxx serial
- Matching extremly rare type A bezel (https://omegaforums.net/threads/seamaster-300-bezels.36357/)
- Matching case cover inside (no picture) is a 165024-63 S.C. HF with service mark from 2003.
- Matching early case with slightly different profile around the outer edge and case opening slots (as discussed here -> pic 9 https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread....mega-Seamaster-300-including-Military-watches).

The bad or what I already know and was confirmed without any problems:
- Bracelet obviously wrong (1476 with 812 endlinks from a Speedmaster); unimportant for me, this one should be in good demand anyway
- Glass no longer original
- Naiad Crown probably not correct. If it is like with the Speedmasters that the older models have the Flat Foot crown
- The hands are replacement/service hands; if they were original, the sword hand would not be correct for such an early model anyway.

And here some pictures...

Edited: Jul 13, 2022

 

[TexOmega]

Good research, crown definitely not original

 

[HarryHeart]

Hi, I still would appreciate your opinions to that watch. If there is something wrong with my post I am thankful for your hint. Hope that it is nothing with the watch that I am not seeing hey there are nearly no reactions. Thanks again!

 

[TexOmega]

Not much to comment on, you nailed the research and snagged a nice example.



My only critique is the lume seems from a different era, and very active if from 1963-4


Wouldn't stop me from wearing it. Nor the updated crown.

If you haven't gotten scorched from the 300 experts(which I am FAR from) yet, I would breath easy and enjoy.

mine from 67

 

[Cuttysark]

You will find the straight hour hand on Ebay easily. There is a crown for sale here on this forum also. It's a nice watch. Remember that was used underwater during the year. Some work to do but the watch is in good conditions 👍

 

[JanV]

The bezel, dial, case and caseback looks good to me, including the lume on the dial. And the case looks to be a HF. So you just need a set of original rounded straight hands and you’re good to go.

 

[flqt-9000]

That bezel is gold!👍

 

[HarryHeart]

Thank you all for your feedback. I liked the watch so much that I secured it before it was gone. It's great that you share my opinion, that makes me super happy. I had hoped after my (theoretical) preliminary research that I would only have to worry about the hands. Apart from the strap.

As for the hands, I have no idea what a baton hand set that matches the watch would cost if it is not a service hand set and original, not relumed. Do you have any idea what the approximate price would be? I'm afraid the ones on eBay are more service or is it easy to find old originals in good condition?

About the lume @TexOmega: I used the UV lamp on the watch for about 5 seconds, after that it glows for 5-10 seconds and is then only faintly illuminated by the glow of the service hands (probably from the 2003 service). My Speedmaster from 1968 glows slightly longer, so this seemed somewhat plausible to me.

 

[SkunkPrince]

I wouln't say that bracelet is wrong. I believe I saw that combination in one of the catalogs at old-omegas.com

But probably not in 1963, no.