I agree, it's rare to see a SM300 with gold writing. But it's quite a hefty premium that this seller (https://www.chrono24.nl/omega/seamaster-300-gilt--id3044763.htm) asks for it... €4k compared to €2,8k/€3k for 2 no date versions on 1171 bracelet.

Is this the next step in trying to upgrade Omega Vintage to Rolex levels?

I'm not affiliated with this seller; neither am I interested in buying this as this is one of my ex watches.

 

The gilt effect is due to aging and not as some sellers claim "by design". Having said that, its a similar scenario to the "chocolate/tropical" Speedmaster dials. Is this worth the premium the seller is asking? In my opinion no. But I am sure there is someone out there who thinks this is a good buy.

 

Lume looks to have been scraped off

 

Are you sure? The writing looks evenly coloured, and natural. It doesn't look as if it has ever been white at all.

The thing is... I've never seen someone using terms like GILT in Seamaster-context. Are the Rolex-guys entering the Seamaster world?

That's correct (either that or they have been washed off). Hands are most likely new as well.

 

I have seen other examples where the seller claimed the dial was rare "gilt dial" SM300.
Am I sure this is the result of aging? Well, one has to be careful in the world of Omega to state anything with 100% certainty. However, based on my 15+ years of owning several examples and looking at thousands of these, I would have to say I am pretty confident this is the result of aging.

 

+1 on this, these were NOT done with colored printing, only white.

Certainly not a €4k watch.

 

I am positively sure you are wrong on this account. This has been debated quite extensively in other forums and consensus is that a minor batch had guilt colored printing. I have had my own dial under a microscope and pure aging would not be that homogenous for sure.
BTW I am not selling mine!

 

I agree that the watch offered for sale looks aged and possibly not guilt from the start, however this does not imply that there actually was not guilt lettering on certain SM300s.

 

Here is a closeup of my dial from the watchmaker service:

 

Consensus based on what? Vote or was there any evidence presented ?
The only way to know for sure would be to try removing the top coating applied to the dial. I am fairly certain you will find the print underneath was white. LEt me know if you want to try it

 

Looks to me like this could be aged lacquer…

 

If I am not mistaken there have been posts of catalog/ads showing clearly guilt lettering. This is some time back and I am not able to remember where I read it.
Please study the hi res image above. You will find the color to be very equal in tone all over. Even the T SWISS MADE T lettering that would normally be hidden partly from the UV is completely equal (and the end of the minute lines).

 

Having aged that uniformly? And on several watches also?
I have learnt to never say never, and to me it does not really make a big deal, but I do suspect this is original.

 

The aging could be due to oxidation, so no need for UV exposure.

Like you, I never say never. So it is possible that these dials were made with gilt lettering, in my opinion we just need some convincing data to draw this conclusion.

But back to the OP's original - original or aged, I don't think the premium is worth this variation.

 

I do agree on you conclusion on the OP watch. If it has aged it has not done so very well and I would not pay a premium to get a "badly" aged one. The lume also looks fishy in some washed out way.

 

Have to agree with Northernman on this. Gilt dials do exist on SM300's, but have only seen these on early 165.024's and not on late productions like the OP's 166.024

Did a compare shot with some of mine in another thread:
http://omegaforums.net/threads/sm300-big-triangle-experts-advice-please.16902/#post-183215

In real live viewing the difference is obvious and mine are all original with very little use and patina

 

Personally I'm pretty sure this is aged lacquer. One reason is that on these supposed gilt dials there is a significant variation in the colour of the 'gilt' lettering between different watches. Also, on the op watch look at 'seamaster 300'- it really looks like lettering that was once white and has now become dirty somehow and there are patches of white still on it. Finally, we've all seen watches with dials that were originally white and are now goldish yellow due to aging lacquer. It's not hard to imagine the same thing happening to these seamaster 300 dials, the difference being that it only shows up on the formerly white lettering.

 

When discussing "gilt" dials in the context of early vintage Rolex sports models (Submariner, Explorer, GMT-Master, circa 1953 to 1966), a "gilt" dial:

[1] did not involve ANY gold
[2] the "gilt" lettering was not printed on the dial, rather, it was a subtractive process in which areas to be marked, were masked. The dials were brass. A masking was placed over the brass where the dial markings were intended to go (e.g., lettering such as "Rolex"; numbers, if any; depth rating; minute hash marks, etc). The dial was put through a process, where an oxide (I believe it was/is some sort of nickel-based oxide) was then deposited onto the dial surface. Then the masking was removed and a coat of lacquer was sprayed over the entire dial. Finally, radioluminescent paint was added to the dial where indicated. Typically, at 5-minute marker plots.

So when looking at a "gilt" dial, you are not looking at gold, nor are you looking at printing. The gold-colored lettering and markings are actually the brass itself showing through.

*in some cases, such as two-color or four-color dials, there WAS some printing on the dial - for example, red or silver lettering for either depth rating, or watch name, while the rest of the dial markings remained gilt.

In 1967, this entire process was changed, where the entire front face of the brass dial was oxidized, and then lettering printed onto the dial. This was white printing (again, in some limited exceptions, certain markings on certain watches were in red). These dials, produced 1968-1984, are referred to as "matte" dials.

Going back to this thread. . .if any Omega SM300 dials are indeed "true" gilt, you should expect to see the brass of the dial as a result of a subtractive process, and not lettering that appears to be added, or painted, on. So this certainly could be possible, as I believe common dial suppliers at the time were Beyer, and Singer. . .and I believe both Rolex, and Omega (and likely many other swiss watch companies) used common suppliers. An alternative explanation can be that the dials are not "gilt" in the traditional sense, but, either used a white paint whose pigment yellowed, or any sort of clear-coat/laquer applied over the paint yellowed.

This is an interesting phenomenon. One of the best ways to confirm, is to keep a continued eye out for other examples to show up, and to present them for discussion when found. Kim, Northernman: thank you for your contributions to this point! cheers!

 

I read some time ago and for the life of me cannot find that article, that the original SM 300 dials were actually silver or silver plated then masked off and chemically treated to create the black dial and silver lettering/ numbers and coated with a lacquer to seal it off. Of course not being anything other than an interested bystander I wonder whether they could have applied a different chemical bath to achieve a gilt effect, or if as has been said it could simply be the result of aged lacquer. If so why is it not seen more often?

 

I recently aquired an Italian 1963 Seamaster 300 165.024 with such a dial, here is a picture for discussion.