There are a lot of redials, incorrect parts and incorrect identifications, but can you cite some fake examples?
Let me help... you just have to look on the opposite page and you'll find one of the worst fakes. "Military RN300"... not It's all fake. Ever seen a W10 or RN300 with date? And reference 166.024? No. Dial, bezel, the lot is fake. Caseback ID's are know fakes. They also had one in the Museum (below) a few years ago. When I visited. And yes, that was fake to. Had a talk with the museum watchmaker about it, he toke it out and opened it. Wrong ref. no. and serial no. he checked in the archieves...was for a dress Watch Omega's museum and the work on the AJTT is great, but these ressources can NOT stand alone or completty relied upon.
And you are so right about that. A few examples on the same page as the "ebay" dial. The BT dial was first introduced with the military W10/RN300 in 1967...and a bit later on some of the civilian 165.024's and 166.024's. So original on a 165.014, even if late - I don't think so. A 166.024 (from 1968- production) with type 1 bezel (from 1964 production) ? , and with stick hands? And a date window never seen before on a 166.024, hmmm.....not the way it left the factory originally - at all, IMO Regarding the ebay dial.. well, I'll leave that story till tomorrow
Okai, now that the AJTT issue is out of the way, let's have a closer look on the dial in question. Is it A: original vintage, B: prototype, C: fake / redial or D: original replacement. This have be discussed a few times before as this type of dial have appeared, both as spare part and mounted on watches, but not often. First, let's try and look at some "hard facts". I have made a comparision below. The ebay dial is the "A2sB1s" one at the bottom right. The A1 is a 2913 original dial and B1 is the original 165.0x4 non BT dial. And yes, the A1s look almost like the ebay dial, but it is not. Yes, that's right, there are 2 different mavericks! Look at the backside of the dials. Even though the dial design of the 2913 and 14755 were the same (from the front). The location of the dial feets and also the circled well (clearance for the lower Incabloc? I'm not a watchmaker;-), are different for the cal. 50x and the cal. 55x. (here I used the 165.0x4 dial as example, as the backside design is the same as the 14755 (besides the different manufactor). So, we have a maverick dial designed for the 2913 (with gilt font) - the A1s, and one designed for the 14755 (and perhaps 165.0x4) with white font - the A2sB1s. The ebay dial won't fit a cal 50x and therefore isn't for a 2913 anyhow. So... A: Original vintage dial? I think we all agree that these dials didn't leave the factory on any 2913 or 14755. Why? Well, the logo and font type for one. And these are clearly not radium dials, as would be expected. And the backside of the dials are simply looking to newish IMO. I have seen some NOS SM300 dials and the backside always have some patina - no matter how is was stored. What about the 165.0x4 then? Again not originally IMO, but now we are moving into the prototype theory (but why make the same for the cal. 501 then?) B: Prototype? Well, we all know that Omega made a ton of variants and some never hit the market, some parts were samples or yes...prototypes. Is that the answer here? Could be, but why have a design for the cal. 501, when it was fased out? Anyway, these dials seems to be marked by the original manufactor of the 2913/14755 dials, ZJ as in ZJ Fluckinger. That's what WatchCo states in their ebay listing, but it's really hard to make out in the picture. I can however see similar numbers on the A1s type in my archieve. Anyway, the type of numbers and engraving on the backside is not the same as on the old original ones anyway. Again I don't think these were old prototypes, as per my reasoning in A. C: Fake / redial? We have enough examples of both fakes and redials among SM300's and other Omega models, so why not for the 2913/14755? Yes, could be. But wouldn't we have seen a lot more of them then? On the ranchero's there are one typically fake variant for both the 2990 and 2996, so why not make one for both the 2913 and 14755, even with the different feet location etc.? I'm not totally convinced, because the 2913 and 14755 production numbers were quite low compared to the 2990/2996 seamaster references that the fakers use...and also compared to the 2. gen SM300 production numbers and popularity, which make the 165.0x4 fakes viable . And would fakers mark the backside with ZJ ? And make the somewhat high quality lume markers instead of a simple print marker? I don't think so. D: Original servicedial? The last option and yes, you guessed it, the one I'm leaning towards. We all know the WatchCo/Omega replacement SL dials for the 165.024 and 166.024. Why didn't Omega make one that fitted the 2913 and 14755? Well, perhaps they actually did. They clearly have a mixture of the design elements from the 2913/14755 and the later 165.0x4 dials. The numbers font looks almost like the 2913/14755 and the lume markers resembles the welled ones on the 2913/14755, as least on the 3, 6, 9 and 12. The text font resembles the one on the 165.0x4, well, the Seamaster text anyway. The "300" and the "Omega Automatic" is quite off base and so is the logo. But a service dial from the 90'ies is still my best guess here. And if @Railmaster1957 remembers right (that it was indeed aviable on the Omega extranet), I would say that settles the matter IMO. Would I like one on my 1.gen SM300? No, mostly because I don't like the writing. Even if it's not a fake, the writing and logo makes it look like one, especially the gilt version.
I agree @kox, probably a service dial. Lame service dial, though. The hour markers look like spongy stick on's. Ugly.
The 12 marker looks wonky... the top of the triangle is higher on the left than the right. No thanks, especially not at that price with so much doubt to its authenticity.