1. Wrong bezel, not base 1000

 

second recorder at first glance

 

You mean that hand is not correct or just not resetting to 12

 

I don't think the second recorder is correct, I am not at home at the moment so can't cross reference but I am sure the 2998-2 came with either a strigh second or lollipop recorder, not that type, I could be completely wrong and will gladly stand corrected by the speedy experts! (why do we never get a megaquartz question? ha ha ha ha)

 

looks more like a 2998-6 or 105.002 early

but then the subdial register hands are wrong. Stay away until more details

 

Correct the tension ring is incorrect for both up to early 105.003-63 had the bright tension ring. If it is a 62 the sub dial hand are incorrect as the leaf hands were phased out during the latter part of 2998's

 

You can't evaluate the watch from the 1 photo. Certainly need to see the movement. The s/n will tell a lot about the watch. It should be a
17.30x.xxx or 17.761.xxx. The case, pushers and crown - ???. The bezel is correct for a 2998-2. Some were the base 1000, some weren't. It is an early DON bezel. The markings @ 95, 105 etc. are ~ half the width of the bezel. Later on they became 3/4 of the width. The dial looks appropriate. The subdial hands are correct. The sweep second hand is not correct. It's hard/impossible to tell the length of the minute hand, it looks a bit short, but then again, it is appropriately aged. The minute, hour and sweep second had all do have the same patina and loss of lume and if they were replacements, it was done early. The big issue with this watch is what is inside!

 

The dial looks a fair bit newer than the hands to me judging by the lume patina

 

If you are saying that the dial is correct for a 2998-2 it isn't.

 

Oops. My bad.

 

Then if a 62, everything is correct but usually small hands are straight, not alpha.

 

For me, the biggest turn off is the Chrono24 watermark.....