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
@kox when someone, somewhere accidentally gives the wrong reference number for their Seamaster 300...
They are not. This is the original lume from that era. See my post here: https://omegaforums.net/threads/a-c...ster-300s-same-but-slightly-different.100099/ Beautiful watch by the way.
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:
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: is different from this (apart from the 63, also the C seems a little bit misplaced): 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.
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.
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!
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.