I guess this one is really my grail watch. For sale in Brisbane by a dealer I heave dealt with before
https://vintagewatchco.com.au/omega-seamaster-139522.html
It all looks ok, maybe the second hand is later. Also the date appears to be 1969 not 1960, but again I would appreciate any comments.

Geoff

 

What about the pencil hands, are they period correct ?

 

I believe so, they changed to the broad shape later.

 

I've done a bit more research and I found the following:
The bezel dates 1969-71
S No 1969
Font on dial correct
White frame round date box correct
Pin holes correct
The hands are from pre 1964 should be sword type
The dial seems to be pre 1964 with the 12 not the big triangle
So is this a 1969 watch with an early dial and handset?

Geoff

 

Wait until the guys in the US are out of bed Geoff.
Maybe @gemini4 can give you some pointers.

 

Thanks Jim

Geoff

 

The bezel looks broken at 12-1. That would make it a no go for me.

 

Don't think so

 

here is some good info on these that I have found helpful. The handset is certainly ok for mid 60s. The chronomaddox is particularly useful.

http://chronomaddox.com/seamaster_3oo_a_history.html

http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...mega-Seamaster-300-including-Military-watches

 

Hmm looks cracked to me here?

 

Really looks like it has a crack thru the bezel insert where Dero said so. Look on your 5th image down.

 

Ok, one of the many questions I need to ask in the morning

Geoff

 

It does make the one available locally to me at $7,600 a bit more interesting...

 

Is that $ US? If so that equates to nearly $11,000 Au

 

Since the dial is a date dial it can’t be « pre 1964 », just my 2 cents. Are there early date dials, anyway ?
Is the date disc white or silver, because it should be silver ?
This is a correct 1969 166.024 to compare with.

 

Since you posted in AU, so did I...

 

I think these later 166 date references are generally seen with the sword hands. These baton hands generally belong to the earlier 165 no date references. Looks like the entire hand set has been changed.

 

So, does it seem to be a correct 1969 apart from the hand set?

Geoff

 

When @kox and @Dash1 SM300 book is published (next year?) we will all have a lot more answers to questions like yours. In my observations, most 166.024 carry the Big Triangle type dial. Non BTs with dates are seen but I’m not sure if they are appropriate for this late of an example.