SM 165.024-63 - “hallmark” and thoughts

Posts
1,362
Likes
11,270
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 😀
 
Posts
9,591
Likes
27,598
Oh man, am i getting senile or what, even if i’m not even that close to 50 yet... You are just so right, mine is a -64 god damnit. 😀 What was i thinking, and yes, all the other ones i was referring to where -64’s as well.

@kox when someone, somewhere accidentally gives the wrong reference number for their Seamaster 300...

 
Posts
2,086
Likes
2,897
Can anybody help me with this strange looking reference stamp?

023bcb43-27a5-4036-b2e0-e99c3f2b7736-jpeg.942602
 
Posts
2,101
Likes
23,744
Can anybody help me with this strange looking reference stamp?

023bcb43-27a5-4036-b2e0-e99c3f2b7736-jpeg.942602
What do you find strange about it?
 
Posts
2,086
Likes
2,897
What do you find strange about it?

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_6433-kopi-jpg.893611
 
Posts
2,101
Likes
23,744
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_6433-kopi-jpg.893611
I think it’s fine although I don’t recall seeing a -63 ever? Here’s mine.
 
Posts
2,086
Likes
2,897
I think it’s fine although I don’t recall seeing a -63 ever? Here’s mine.

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):

023bcb43-27a5-4036-b2e0-e99c3f2b7736-jpeg.942602

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:
 
Posts
907
Likes
2,485
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.
 
Posts
1,159
Likes
3,400
Here's a picture of a watch sold on OF:

img_6433-kopi-jpg.893611

My image - and my watch, which was not sold on OF....

Think your caseback is OK....

OP - nice watch👍
 
Posts
2,086
Likes
2,897
My image - and my watch, which was not sold on OF....

Sorry for stating it was sold here. I was wrong.
 
Posts
1,362
Likes
11,270
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!
 
Posts
2,086
Likes
2,897
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.

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.