Forums Latest Members
  1. khanmu Mar 25, 2020

    Posts
    1,359
    Likes
    11,151
    Ok - so the extract cane through, says the watch production was July 9 1964, shipped to France. Given that date, and I understand the bezel that is fitted came out in 1964, I’m going with original fitted bezel...Hands do need lume correcting at some point, but overall I’m happy so I’m keeping it :)
     
  2. ConElPueblo Mar 25, 2020

    Posts
    9,587
    Likes
    26,961
    @kox when someone, somewhere accidentally gives the wrong reference number for their Seamaster 300...

    i-sense-a-disturbance-in-the-force.jpg
     
    Rman, khanmu, Baz9614 and 3 others like this.
  3. ndgal Mar 26, 2020

    Posts
    2,274
    Likes
    5,483
    khanmu and Lazy_Lightning like this.
  4. OMEGuy Mar 26, 2020

    Posts
    2,086
    Likes
    2,783
    Can anybody help me with this strange looking reference stamp?

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Baz9614 Mar 26, 2020

    Posts
    2,070
    Likes
    23,159
    What do you find strange about it?
     
  6. OMEGuy Mar 26, 2020

    Posts
    2,086
    Likes
    2,783
    The "6" and the "3" appear to be differently sized and too close to each other.

    Here's a picture of a watch sold on OF:

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Baz9614 Mar 26, 2020

    Posts
    2,070
    Likes
    23,159
    I think it’s fine although I don’t recall seeing a -63 ever? Here’s mine. 0003436B-1846-4227-8154-5176D3C849EC.jpeg
     
  8. OMEGuy Mar 26, 2020

    Posts
    2,086
    Likes
    2,783
    It's a gift to be able to say it's fine though one doesn't recall to have seen it before.

    I was asking for help, because in my eyes this:

    165.024-63.jpg

    is different from this (apart from the 63, also the C seems a little bit misplaced):

    [​IMG]

    I am not an expert on this reference and I didn't intend to doubt anything, so I hoped someone experienced here could tell me if it's a regular caseback or not.

    I wanted to learn something.
     
    Edited Mar 26, 2020
  9. JanV Mar 27, 2020

    Posts
    907
    Likes
    2,467
    Compare both of the pictures of the casebacks, and you will see that both reference numbers are stamped 165024-6 and in both the number 3 has been added later. The 165024-6 is even and identical in “print” and the 3 shows a different trace from the stamping tool.

    This could easily have happened if the factory at the time of printing a new reference didn’t know when this reference would have been released, so they chose to leave out the last number of the year for this first reference. Sounds logical to me.
     
    613F7ACE-F856-4CD4-ACB6-806105AAC881.jpeg ED47A2F9-4CCC-475D-AF5F-F9F70C829F30.jpeg
  10. Pahawi Mar 27, 2020

    Posts
    1,150
    Likes
    3,360
    My image - and my watch, which was not sold on OF....

    Think your caseback is OK....

    OP - nice watch:thumbsup:
     
    khanmu likes this.
  11. OMEGuy Mar 27, 2020

    Posts
    2,086
    Likes
    2,783
    Sorry for stating it was sold here. I was wrong.
     
  12. khanmu Mar 27, 2020

    Posts
    1,359
    Likes
    11,151
    What a great site - I took a punt based on knowledge gleaned from this site, and whilst I had some doubts, they were assuaged by folks on here. That’s especially great, as my first vintage SM300 ended up being a fake noob tax... so a big thanks to everyone who helped verify it!
     
  13. OMEGuy Mar 27, 2020

    Posts
    2,086
    Likes
    2,783
    Thank you for your response.

    I knew about the general procedure.

    I looked a bit and on any 165.024-63s I could find the casebacks look the same.

    So I understand this is likely a legit but uncommon irregularity.
     
    JanV likes this.