I am considering this SM300 from the upcoming Watches of Knightsbridge auction. I have some reservations, and would love to hear your thoughts.

Hands could easily be replacements, as they’re hardly patinated at all. The big triangle has a blemish on the left side, which makes me think relume. However it’s hard to be sure. I spoke with a representative there who said that the lume still glows. Is this normal for an original watch of this age?

In addition it’s being marketed as including original box, booklet and guarantee. But the last page of the guarantee is missing, so there’s really nothing linking the watch to it. I welcome all opinions!

Here’s a link to the auction, look for Lot 230:

http://watchesofknightsbridge.com/view-auction-catalogues.html

 

I have looked long and hard at this one too and don't know what to think from the photos. Possibly in your hand you would have a better idea of just how original it is, but I think you're right to have questions.
The lume in the BT and at 6 have the distinctive 'pinholes' which would help suggest it's original. I totally agree that the hands appear unusually fresh for that age. Also the deterioration of the lume in the bezel appears to be wholly at odds with the dial and hands, which seem pristine. The case appears sharp but there's a huge amount of 'gunk' - artfully added or years of use??
The back page can easily become detached in the warranty booklet, but the fact that it's missing means that there's no connection at all between the documentation and the watch - consequently I would not add any value at all.
My area of interest is really older Speedmasters, so my opinions on this one are of little consequence.

 

Agree with your concerns. The big triangle looks real sloppy to me. The three marker not so much better.
And yes there are holes, but that alone does not make this original IMO. The 6 marker hole is significantly larger than the 12 marker hole. Hands look way too fresh as mentioned.

As discussed in a recent post I placed, original lume can still glow, but ussually not that long.

 

Maybe is the photo but that big 12 triangle looks like my 4 years old son did it... also 3 and 5 markers look a little bit weird, but maybe is just the angle and crystal…..

 

I like it, I think the dial looks fine, hands do match very well but I think they look ok from the photos.
Agree on the paperwork, cannot 100% connect these to the watch.

What do we think about the estimate?
What do members think it will go for?

 

Shouldn't the big triangle go more over the minute marks on both side? It looks to be more over on the left side compared to right, so I think there's some problem with the dial..

 

I've tried this one on. Patina seems ok. Not sure why the big T lume is messy. Estimate seems too high

 

Thanks, looks much better in your photo.
Did the substance in the hands look the same as that on the dial?
Anything "fishy" about the watch that you saw?

 

Thanks for all the responses. I am glad to hear that I'm not the only with these thoughts. After a fair amount of research, I have yet to come across an example that left the factory with lume outside the lines like that. I guess it could theoretically have happened naturally over the course of it's life, but It's just hard to be convinced. I have also never seen 50 year old hands looking like that. Apparently it came through a dealer who bought it from the original owner. In that case, it would have been of great value to have a letter from the owner explaining what the watch has been through. This information should be easily obtainable. In the absence of that, we're left to guess.

 

Here are some more "unbalanced" big T lume shots.

 

The two suspect things that I saw were the messy big T lume and a mismatch between the bezel lume and the dial lume. The hands *seemed* to be similar to the dial

 

I apologize, but I wasn't expressing myself well. I meant I haven't seen lume outside the triangle lines like that before. The triangle crossing the minute markers seems to be fairly common. But I haven't seen lume blemishes like the one in question before. Here is the Watches of Knightsbridge triangle:


Here are a few others for comparison:

 

Ah, ok I understand now, thanks for clarifying.
Agreed, it is a little messy to the left of the triangle.
I thought that might have been a crystal scratch distorting the view, it seems not.

I have seen similar issues with Rolex, I decided against a Sea Dweller 1665 because of a similar issue on the BT lume of it.
It was completely legit, I just thought it would annoy me in the future so said no.

Edit. I'd still buy the SM300 if I was in the market!
(I will not be bidding)

 

So, anyone attending tomorrow?
I'll not be there but will be watching.

 

Sold for £12500 plus commission.

So much for the estimate being too low.

 

Sold for about £15k inc costs, that is insane.