Still learning but... Fake or non original Seamaster 300 on the bay

OK so I'm still learning the nuances of real and fake Omega's but just spotted this 300 on the bay and thought I'd try my hand and calling out its issues, in an effort to learn.

So. what am I missing? http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-OMEGA-SEAMASTER-300-DATE-565-24-JEWELS-LUMINOUS-DIAL-WATCH-MENS-1960s/291722757202?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid=222007&algo=SIC.MBE&ao=1&asc=20131003132420&meid=cd128e3bc41644608322554fc6d0c5cb&pid=100005&rk=3&rkt=6&sd=172149115251

The indices at 6 and 9 look incorrect, shouldn't they be squared off triangles on the inner part of the dial.
The date window seems to be missing the white trim.
Missing serif numerals at 12 - 6 - 9.
The Triangle at 12 on the bezel appears hand painted and not sharp at all. Not to mention the funny "1" at the 10 spot should have a small line on top rather than a straight vertical 1 (right?)
"Seamaster 300" should all be on a single line rather than stacked, and "300" is in the wrong font, should match "Seamaster".
Omega Logo looks too far down on the dial




On the bezel it appears as if the black portion doesn't fill into the coin edge but is rather crisp, however the font used on numerals appear funny, the "1" in the "10" doesnt match the original 1's used.

Movement should be a 552 I think rather than a 565. Scratch that it seems some came in 565 movement.


Caseback looks legit with the flat topped "A" in wAterproof.


What am I missing?

Looks pretty good to me, I'm not an expert like a lot of these guys, but the aging of the watch is hard to fake, even the lume is cracking and the plots have a patina. The watch looks really dirty though on the case back foto. I would ask if it's surface dirt or if the metal has corroded. Also ask for pictures of the movement, this will help the experts on this forum.

The font of Omega Swiss Co Watch looks funny to me. I'm not an expert, it just looks off for some reason.

The difference in color of patina between the hands, bezel, and dial indicate some degree of service or replacement.

Points regarding bracelet and movement condition have been addressed above. If it is a service dial, it's old enough to have aged into a patina a second time.

Run Forrest, Run!!!

In parts of the former Soviet Block, that is considered a "collector grade" 300...

I should clarify, I am not planning on bidding on this watch. Just using it as a learning opportunity to research its authenticity and check if I'm learning right and wrong.

Dial, dial, dial, and the rest is immaterial. The dial is 1000% wrong, all aspects. Imagine a fake Datejust dial on a real Submariner...

The dial should have 12,3,6,9 with open fonts. Look at the many threads about the dial variations and learn from @kox, @CajunTiger, @gemini4, and many others, myself included, who have very good examples of 300s.

Once you can pick one apart, and I mean all aspects, and can tell Watchco from period, you are ready to start thinking about buying one. They are trickier than Speedies in many aspects.

The hour indices in the shorter radius vs the minute markers, the swiss made location, the bezel and lack 3, 6 & 9 are all dead ringers that state it is not original. Nice example Tubber!

Correct. That thread was about the service dials for the 1.gen. straight lugs SM300's. Which existed.
But I haven't seen old service dials "meant" for the 2.gen. SM300's (16x.024's) and not at all this ebay one. Well, not until the Omega replacement SL dials - that were produced from the 90'ies and forward.
Until I see more examples, I would say: redial (fakes would have emerged in greater numbers and spottet by the community)


The bezel is ok and correct for a 166.024, but yes very worn and damaged.
There were 3 types of these bezels were the "1" is straight, the two others have sharper triangles at 12 and a thinner font (but same type). So perhaps you have compared it to some of them