And this is the kind of thing that will keep me from buying one over the other sometimes- if both watches being equal and one has the original bracelet, even at a premium because of the bracelet- I will opt for the complete one just to not have to hassle with having to track down the bracelet. I have several watches that I waited until I found the watch complete with bracelet.

 

Wow that’s amazing

 

Gotta love auto-correct...sometimes it knows what we actually are thinking.

 

Don't worry. Buy it. All good for that price. Case back engraving will be something private. And for the Canadian Air force delivery: rather like a PX type duty free private purchase. Same with many US purchases from the airforce and navy stores.... kind regards. Achim

 

Thank you all. Very helpful indeed. It certainly seems the watch is 'good' for the price, or at least I seem not to be missing any blatant red flags, which was I was nervous about as I don't know the reference particularly well.
I believe the seller already has the extract, so am certainly not expecting anything unusual to show up on it.
It is a Huguenin Freres case incidentally, marked 165024 (no dots or 'year-like' number), probably around the time of transition to CB?
Do collectors tend to have a preference for HF or CB in this reference? Aesthetically, they seem to be more similar than for the Speedmaster, for example. I can't tell the difference.
I'll post a picture once I have it in my hand.

 

@john_coburg , you might want to double check the chrono24 listings from the seller. "Your" watch isn't a non subreference 165.024 serial 229x from january 1966. He has two listnings and has mix/matched the text for these. The text for yours match his other listning for a 165.024-64.

That's one thing.

And then you might want to look at this WoK november auction, lot 139, where your watch was under the hammer. This thread (and the chrono24 listning) is missing the money shot - the movement picture and serial. Below is one from the WoK auction. So "yours" has a serial 24723xxx, which is an ok range for a HF non-subreference 165.024 (but no guarantee for match in the archieves mind you).
BTW: You can see that the upper bridge has the engraved text from a certified chronometer movement. And the cal. 552 wasn't and shouldn't have that text. So upper bridge has been wrongly changed for one.
The serial points to a production in the summer of 1967, and IMO that is to late for the baton hands and to early for the B5 type bezel. So unlikely that the watch left the factory like this - IMO!

Whether the price is still fair I won't judge, but something extra for you to consider and check up upon.

Be careful out there ...

 

Unparalleled research.

 

Next time I buy a SM 300 could everybody tell me please to check with @kox first?

 

Thank you very much indeed for this excellent investigative work. But i'm a little lost.
I can certainly see he's sloppily mixed up the text in the two listings - pretty poor.
But you're saying 'mine' isn't a non-subreference.. what does that mean? you mean it isn't a 165.024-XX ? I don't think he ever claimed it was?
And later on you mention the correct serial (247xxxx rather than 229xxxx) is ok for a HF non-subref, in which case, this watch is probably okay as a 165.024, as it is/has always been described (although no guarantee) - so i'm not sure i see the real problem quite yet?
Re. the engraved text on the upper bridge - yes, this certainly sounds more worrying. Makes me suspicious about the whole watch now.
He apparently has the extract (showing 1966), so as we previously conceded, the hands and the bezel might be replacements... but for £4k, perhaps that didn't matter all that much, given they look to be by Omega.
I agree the listing mix-up and the replaced upper bridge are additional warning signs... maybe i'll ask for £500 off and see what he says.
Meanwhile, thank you very much for taking the time to write this up - it is much appreciated.
John

 

There's properly no problem with the seller, besides his sloppy mix-up. But you think that the watch is from january 1966 because of the extract claim. It isn't. That extract and date is for the serial 229x, reference 165.024-64, his other listning.
Just pointed out and meant that your's is a 165.024 (non-subreference) with serial 247x, and that is not from january 1966, but from mid 1967. This is crucial to understand if the type of parts on the watch are ok, not just in regards to reference number, but more important, production date. And I just gave you my view on that. For instance, if the serial was a 229x, then the baton hands would have been ok for instance.
Yes, seller didn't state a wrong reference no. in the add, but everything else he writes is wrong. Also the bracelets ref. no. and date code.

Enjoy the watch if you buy it.

 

Thanks Kox, I've caught up now. I'm with you. Thank you again - I'll see how i feel about it in the flesh.

 

I think the point is that given the actual 24.7M serial number, the originality of some parts are questionable. Obviously, there is also the replaced bridge. It is probably a good time to take a step back and do some research.

 

6000USD better conditions with strap. I didn’t take

 

Just to round this off, I dealt at £3,500. I felt that was an okay price, and more importantly, i'm really happy with the piece.
Here's a picture of it next to my 145.022-71, whose case it pairs with quite elegantly i think.
Interesting that the 'asymmetric' case (first made by HF?) seemed to come to the Seamaster 300 before it reached 'fame' in the Speedmaster?

 

I’d have bought it for that price.
Worth more than that in parts.
Nice looking thing.

 

Well done.....enjoy

 

And while i'm here... would anyone have an easy way of fixing the bezel that doesn't quite line up properly? I can't quite ignore it!

 

Wear that watch and enjoy it! And work on that OCD.

 

The bezel on my SM300 is bi directional and turns easily. I guess yours has a build up of crud preventing it from turning. Take it to a watchmaker who understands old Omegas, the insert is very easily damaged.

Just another thought, is the crystal new?