Then why are they seemingly crushed in places with clear gaps at either end? Those are nothing like the fixed bars I have seen. It could be the picture, but they sure look like hollow bars to me.
Extract from the archieves would be good but without the marks i think they will not state Royal Navy provenience.
Watch is authentic without any doubt.
That's not how the archives work.
If the movement in the watch was shipped as part of a Royal Navy ordered Seamaster 300, then that is what the extract will show.
Without solid facts/documentation to back up that this was not engraved for x/y/z reason, anything you, or your friend have been told is sadly, nothing more than a nice story.
Really good point of view, should try to find out at Omega Museum and also agree with you without solid facts just a nice story.That is why I thought somebody here who knows more about it...
Comparing the back of your watch to other RN issued Seamaster 300s, it appears pretty clear that the case has been milled down at some point.
Even if the watch was not issued (and didn't get the deeply engraved issue numbers), the factory engravings are long gone, along with any of the factory finishes.
Equally, if it had been worn on a NATO strap for any period of time, you would expect wear marks (I've yet to see an issued SM300 or CWC without them)... which are gone.
TL : DR - for whatever reason, as some point the base back has been milled/polished. If you want to know for sure whether it's a legit Royal Navy Seamaster 300, you're going to need an extract of the archives. Bear in mind, that even if the extract states that this watch was sold to the MOD/Royal Navy, the lack of marking will put a lot of military collectors off, and will substantially affect the price they are willing to pay should you ever sell.
Maybe milled down but I dont think so as the caseback is to thick for milling down that deep markings. Anyway, who knows...
I was of the opinion that the Seamaster 300 deliverd to the RN Comes plain without factory engravings and are marked by the RN. Am I wrong?
Surely legit, not relumed or anything else... Watch is 100% original and does not look like any marks removed... Original Forces marks are quite deep, would be visible if turned off the caseback. Caseback looks orginal thickness.
My friend was told many years ago that Omega has sent watches with clean caseback to the British Forces and marks have been engraved just before watches handed over to each soldier
Maybe milled down but I dont think so as the caseback is to thick for milling down that deep markings. Anyway, who knows...
I was of the opinion that the Seamaster 300 deliverd to the RN Comes plain without factory engravings and are marked by the RN. Am I wrong?
I will suggest him getting that extract from archieves.
BUT: If Omega archieve says watch is RN provenience, isn't it an advantage as watch is in that good shape as never worn by soldier although there are no markings.
BUT: If Omega archieve says watch is RN provenience, isn't it an advantage as watch is in that good shape as never worn by soldier although there are no markings. Condition is really excellent, sharp case etc. Checked other on WWW but did not find same condition.
Thanks for all your comments! Will read all comments carefully by tomorrow but extract fro the archives seems to be the best way.
Hi there,
any specialist here having really good knowledge about:
Seamaster 300, Ref. 165.024, delivered to the British Forces in 1967 with fixed lugs and dial with big T.
Need help to find out a certain information about my watch.
Thanks.
That's not how the archives work.
If the movement in the watch was shipped as part of a Royal Navy ordered Seamaster 300, then that is what the extract will show.
Without solid facts/documentation to back up that this was not engraved for x/y/z reason, anything you, or your friend have been told is sadly, nothing more than a nice story.
Comparing the back of your watch to other RN issued Seamaster 300s, it appears pretty clear that the case has been milled down at some point.
Even if the watch was not issued (and didn't get the deeply engraved issue numbers), the factory engravings are long gone, along with any of the factory finishes.
Equally, if it had been worn on a NATO strap for any period of time, you would expect wear marks (I've yet to see an issued SM300 or CWC without them)... which are gone.
TL : DR - for whatever reason, as some point the base back has been milled/polished. If you want to know for sure whether it's a legit Royal Navy Seamaster 300, you're going to need an extract of the archives. Bear in mind, that even if the extract states that this watch was sold to the MOD/Royal Navy, the lack of marking will put a lot of military collectors off, and will substantially affect the price they are willing to pay should you ever sell.
Do not understand. Did Royal Navy ordered single movements and cases or complete watches?
If this movement with no. 24.71...ordered by Royal Navy, then Omega will confirm: Delivered to Royal Navy?
Thanks.
The records in the archive combine a movement number, case reference, and other details around the watch.
The movement number would need to match against a record that shows shipped to the MOD/Navy.
There’s a chance that this could be a civilian watch, with a military dial.
All you can do is order an extract, and see what it comes back as.
