Seamaster 300 165024-63 unreferenced second hand

[FabulousFab]

Hi everybody,
I’m new on the forum and I would like to ask your opinion about the strange second hand of my Seamaster 300.
The watch belonged to my father-in-law and was purchased new and has never been serviced or repaired.
I sifted through the Omega catalogs on old-omegas web site related to years 1966-1969, I haven’t found a single reference displaying the same second hand of my watch.
Here the picture of my Seamaster…sorry for my English mistakes, I write from Italy:

 

[Seaborg]

The most probable possibility is that the second hand was replaced during service as this second hand is not correct for this reference.
It's an almost 60 years old watch, who knows now precisely if it was or not serviced in the past...

Very nice Seamaster by the way 👍

 

[Passover]

Hi!

As far as I can see the crown is not the original one so its likely that the watch has been serviced

 

[Passover]

The look of the surrounding areas of the hour markers would usually ring my 'relume alarm bell'

What do you think?

Edited: Oct 13, 2021

 

[FabulousFab]

Seaborg

The most probable possibility is that the second hand was replaced during service as this second hand is not correct for this reference.
It's an almost 60 years old watch, who knows now precisely if it was or not serviced in the past...

Very nice Seamaster by the way 👍

Thx Seaborg,
but I’m sure my father-in-law bought it new from an Omega store in 1968 and it has never been serviced…I have read about there are several sub-references for the main reference numbers and also Omega often continued using parts inventories from earlier references and sub-references until the stock was used up entirely….
Could be my case? What do you think about? Have you ever hear about one of this kind of watch?

 

[Seaborg]

F FabulousFab

Could be my case? What do you think about? Have you ever hear about one of this kind of watch?

Once more, I think the hand was replaced... This is not even a Seamaster hand (for instance from previous models such as 14755 or 2913) so no chance for Omega to have put such an hand on this watch.

 

[FabulousFab]

Thx Passover,
I compared the crown to the others found in several other photos, but I don’t see difference….By the way I’m not an expert, soo here more detailed photos for your eyes!

 

[Passover]

F FabulousFab

Thx Passover,
I compared the crown to the others found in several other photos, but I don’t see difference….By the way I’m not an expert, soo here more detailed photos for your eyes!

Thanks for the additional pictures!

Original crowns look like that, so called 'flat foot' crown:



If you look closey you will also the difference on the inner (right) side

 

[FabulousFab]

👍

Passover

Thanks for the additional pictures!

Original crowns look like that, so called 'flat foot' crown:



If you look closey you will also the difference on the inner (right) side

👍
thanks a lot for your precious informations!!!

 

[FabulousFab]

This evening I’ll meet my father-in-law and I’ll ask him about the “new” status of the watch when he bought it 😉

 

[Donn Chambers]

While you believe the watch has never been serviced, I really cannot believe that is true. As others have said, that wrong seconds hand is a clear indication of a service at some point — it did not leave the Omega factory that way. People forget a lot over 60 years — servicing a mechanical watch was a lot more common 50 years ago. I suspect your father-in-law had an issue, dropped it off with a watchmaker to fix, and forgot about it.

the question is why the seconds hand was replaced. Perhaps the watchmaker mangled it in the service and just replaced with what he had on hand that would fit?

regardless, it’s a beautiful example.

 

[Donn Chambers]

F FabulousFab

Thx Seaborg,
but I’m sure my father-in-law bought it new from an Omega store in 1968 and it has never been serviced…I have read about there are several sub-references for the main reference numbers and also Omega often continued using parts inventories from earlier references and sub-references until the stock was used up entirely….
Could be my case? What do you think about? Have you ever hear about one of this kind of watch?

others can correct me, but I think this particular variation was only offered from 1964ish to about 1967, then they switched to the version with the sword hands and screw in crown. If your father-in-law bought it “new” in 1968, I suspect it really wasn’t a “new” watch, but a used one that had some work done on it. Either your FIL got taken by the seller (sold a used watch as new) or there was a misunderstanding (I.e., it was a “new” watch for your FIL, so in his memory he bought a “new” watch.)

 

[pennsyl936]

It looks like the case back has what might be a watchmakers repair marking. But can't tell conclusively from the photo provided....

 

[ConElPueblo]

F FabulousFab

This evening I’ll meet my father-in-law and I’ll ask him about the “new” status of the watch when he bought it 😉

Don't be worried - we have people coming here with watches that have completely wrong dials, adamantly stating that they are sure the watch has never been touched... Completely normal 😀

 

[jaegodylan]

Donn Chambers

others can correct me, but I think this particular variation was only offered from 1964ish to about 1967, then they switched to the version with the sword hands and screw in crown. If your father-in-law bought it “new” in 1968, I suspect it really wasn’t a “new” watch, but a used one that had some work done on it. Either your FIL got taken by the seller (sold a used watch as new) or there was a misunderstanding (I.e., it was a “new” watch for your FIL, so in his memory he bought a “new” watch.)

There are plenty of inconsistencies with hands and just about everything with the production dates on these.. and it could have sat in the shop for some time and been sold at a discount.. no one knows but the buyer and the shop!

 

[FabulousFab]

pennsyl936

It looks like the case back has what might be a watchmakers repair marking. But can't tell conclusively from the photo provided....

It’s an artefact

 

[FabulousFab]

Thanks to all for your replies and the “brain storming” 😀

 

[Concer]

Maybe your father in law bought the watch at the ad already in used condition and he just thought it was new….

But whatsoever, the watch looks awesome. To find a matching second hand won’t be that great problem. You can already wear and enjoy it 👍

Edited: Oct 14, 2021

 

[Passover]

Passover

The look of the surrounding areas of the hour markers would usually ring my 'relume alarm bell'

What do you think?

Humidity or relume? 😕 Anyone? 😀

 

[Concer]

Yeah maybe. The tension ring looks a little muddy too. But could also be an effect of „outgasing“ Tritium in correspondence to the dial paint. It’s hard to tell from these pics. Maybe a pic of the movement could provide more information about this.