Good evening all,
I am looking at an affordable mid-60s Seamaster 300 and have come across the following 165-024, dating to Jan '66, offered at £4k without the bracelet. How does this sound, value-wise? And where can i find a good 'Speedmaster101-style' guide to these 60s SM300 references? I believe there are at least 5 different distinct insert styles (fat/thin font, white, yellow, brown/yellow, etc) but it certainly looks to have some 'patina' to it.
I believe baton hands were correct for 1966 (becoming sword hands from 1967?)
The case doesn't look too polished, to my eye.
Does everything look okay?
Thank you vm.
John

 

Wrong crown, but £4k is not a bad price for this. How much with the bracelet?

 

I think he's sold it separately, strangely.

 

What’s the story regarding the caseback engraving? Can’t be the proper movement number

 

I wondered that, and there’s some etching underneath one of the lugs too. I’ll ask.

 

Looks like the lug etching says "1706 794 ____" ,so it seems like the same numbers plus something else. Although it is pretty hard to make out.

 

What is wrong with the crown?

 

The crown is a replacement piece. But it's not a big issue. With 300€ you should find it on Ebay. Really nice patina! The price is good for this watch.

 

I agree that is not a big issue. I would not describe a service replacement crown as wrong.

That’s a bit like buying a 50 year old car and expecting it to have the original tyres.

 

+1
It's a normal service part changed because of the water resistance during the years.. I think was the first need for a man that bought a diver watch in those years: the water resistance

 

Thank you all, for your thoughts. What do you think of the bezel insert? It almost looks brown in places, but I do see a few like that. Is there a resource somewhere I can read up on the chronology of the evolution of the various types of inserts? I feel woefully under-resourced in terms of historical knowledge. Thank you vm.

 

https://omegaforums.net/threads/legit-bezel-sm-300-165024.96677/

 

Thank you very much - just what i needed.
So it looks like D to me? Which is a little odd, as that would suggest it should be '67/'68 with 25'/26' serial, whereas i'm told it is Jan '66 with a 22.9' serial. So it might have been switched at some point - not ideal.

 

It's a type E, so even more likely that it's been swapped if it's a 22.9m serial.

 

Replacement crown or bezel wouldn't bother me (as long as they are factory service parts as these appear to be) unless you're looking for a safe queen. If you plan to wear it regularly and aren't concerned with the last 10% of collectors value, then I see the replacement bezel as a bargaining chip in negotiating the price and not a detriment.

 

I am not sure you can claim that is the wrong bezel. It would be a guess at best, with a strong possibility of it being the original bezel.

 

We can pick the watch apart for you if you want, but it's an attractive piece, and I don't think you will do much better for that price. Maybe some people are scared off by that funny engraving, but I think it's baked into the price.

 

And the engraving under the lug looks like a watchmakers engraving (we have seen that before)
But the numbers on the back look stamped- like an inventory number- that would make me very curious about its origins, not put off one bit. Getting an abstract and trying to do the detective work on why that watch was stamped with numbers would have me intrigued.

 

I just bought a very similar looking 165.024-64 (no caseback engraving) and the extract just came back as this:



You never know with these things...

 

You can often get more for selling watch and bracelet separately than as one item. Someone looking for a bracelet will pay over the odds for it, whereas the absence of an original bracelet doesn’t detract so much from the value of a watch because people are buying the timepiece not the strap.