I'm new to the vintage Omegas. I've been doing my homework around this forum and also reading other places on the web.

I have found a Seamaster 300 that I'm interested in purchasing. The only problem is the year on the caseback is stamped "67" and the serial number on the movement is "28.xxx.xxx" which would normally be associated with 1969. From my homework, it seems as though the general consensus is that because of the way Omega assembled their watches back then, if watch parts are within a 1-2 year range of the manufacture year of the watch it is likely that it could be original.

Could this be the case with this 1967 watch and 69 movement or am is it just wishful thinking?

 

I don't know about Seamaster 300 case backs, but for speedmasters it's not unusual that their production date is years later than the date stamped in the case back.

 

How does the rest of it look? Is all of the lume consistent? Do any parts look significantly newer than others? If it all looks consistent, it's unlikely to be a franken in my opinion. Maybe you could post some pictures?

 

Here are some pics. To my novice eyes, it looks pretty consistent.

 

I too am a novice but aside from the braclet the watch appears to my untrained eye to be original.

 

I have the same. Case Ref 165024 looks unpolished. , movement 565 is correct. Dial, hands and crown looks original and in beautifull shape !!!.Bracelet is Omega franken from 90´s decade. To be absollutelly secure here there is more experts than me !!!

 

As you know, there's lots of information out there about these and spotting fakes but, we'll see what the Guys say. The serial number is on the bridge with 565. It's difficult to photograph movements and sometimes the colours look uneven when they're not. In this case, that bridge looks a different colour and it may have been changed but, I wouldn't read anything sinister in that. Don't like the spots on the inside of the case back but it likely just needs a clean and service.

To me, the hour hand has been relumed which is not unusual on these wide hands.

Hope some SM300 guys chip in.

Cheers, Chris

 

Bracelet is one of the correct options. Hour hand's lume looks old and could very well be original. The crystal is wrong type though, and it's likely the reason to cause the second hand to look too short in some pictures.

 

Yes, it could be original, but 2 years is on the borderline and, like ChrisN pointed out, the train bridge looks different and could have come from another watch. For a watch of this value, an Extract from the Archive is worth it for the peace of mind.

 

Thanks for your help everyone! Much appreciated.

 

For a 166.024, serial 28x is quite normal. And yes, these SM300's with date were mainly produced in 68 and 69 (even if the case back says *67 ~ year of introduction!).
The bracelet looks to be an original 1116, which is ok on a late SM300.
Yes, maybe hands have been re-lumed, but I don't think so... it's normal that they don't match the dial in the tone. The structure of the lume seems ok and dirty/discolored around the edges also imply original lume... or a very early relume.
Bezel also ok for a 166.024.
All in all a-ok IMO (except the crystal of course, as mentioned, but a minor issue).
Enjoy or happy hunting