Kevin Lee
·Hi OF members,
I would like to get some advice on the authenticity of this Omega Seamaster 300 165.024.
I had referred to https://www.omegaseamaster300.com/ as my basis for comparison.
The following are key points I had noted about the watch.
1. The bezel seems to be similar to the bezel shown below. i.e. 1967 period.
I had also noted that the bezel had some little spots, which looked like the color in the bezel had "peeled" off?
Around the 45 to 47 minute markers on the bezel. Is this normal?
Please refer to the third image.
2. The crown seems to be a serviced replacement, from what I recalled.
*I had forgotten to snap a shot of the crown for your viewing pleasure.
3. I noted that the dial on this watch does not match with any of the dials represented on the website.
But I did find a similar watch which was sold previously, which had a similar dial, and which falls within the 1960 period.
https://www.acollectedman.com/produ...er-300-165024-steel-watch?variant=21152961667
4. Lastly, from what I understood from the seller, the movement serial number is within the 22million range, which according to the omegaseamaster300 website, indicates that the movement period is in 1965.
*I believe there was a typo on the website, as it is showing the year 1665.
From what I can infer, this seems to be authentic?
Please refer to the images attached below for some reference.
Can any OF members shed some light on this?
Or provide some pointers on what I should look out for?
Your opinions and advice would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you.
Regards,
Kevin
I would like to get some advice on the authenticity of this Omega Seamaster 300 165.024.
I had referred to https://www.omegaseamaster300.com/ as my basis for comparison.
The following are key points I had noted about the watch.
1. The bezel seems to be similar to the bezel shown below. i.e. 1967 period.
I had also noted that the bezel had some little spots, which looked like the color in the bezel had "peeled" off?
Around the 45 to 47 minute markers on the bezel. Is this normal?
Please refer to the third image.
2. The crown seems to be a serviced replacement, from what I recalled.
*I had forgotten to snap a shot of the crown for your viewing pleasure.
3. I noted that the dial on this watch does not match with any of the dials represented on the website.
But I did find a similar watch which was sold previously, which had a similar dial, and which falls within the 1960 period.
https://www.acollectedman.com/produ...er-300-165024-steel-watch?variant=21152961667
4. Lastly, from what I understood from the seller, the movement serial number is within the 22million range, which according to the omegaseamaster300 website, indicates that the movement period is in 1965.
*I believe there was a typo on the website, as it is showing the year 1665.
From what I can infer, this seems to be authentic?
Please refer to the images attached below for some reference.
Can any OF members shed some light on this?
Or provide some pointers on what I should look out for?
Your opinions and advice would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you.
Regards,
Kevin