Hey all I've been looking for a nice sm300 diver to replace a dearly departed recent piece and ran into this nice example : http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-1968-O...iangle-Watch-100-Stock-SERVICED-/261944436751Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network My thoughts: 1) Open 6 and 9 fonts look correct 2) No stubby minute markers 3) White border around date box 4) Sword hand correct for 1968 5) Bezel looks correct 6) Pretty big scratch on the case back, and some smaller scratches elsewhere. Has correct caseback font with flat top A My big concerns: 1) how new the dial looks and the uneven aging of the lume. The description says: "Factory authentic matte black dial with large luminous triangular 12 o'clock marker, luminous hour markers at other positions (with adjacent Arabic numerals at 6 and 9 positions), date only window at 3 o'clock, luminous sword hour and pencil minute hands, and arrowhead sweep second hand with luminous tip. This dial is original and is marked (from top down) with Omega logo, "Omega," "Automatic," Seamaster 300," and "T Swiss Made T" (below 6 o'clock marker)" Factory authentic? Fishy huh? 2) What's going on with the movement and inside caseback (have asked for pictures) In the alternative there is this guy, which seems more honest: http://m.ebay.com/itm/60s-Omega-Seamaster-300-Date-Big-Triangle-Dial-Automatic-Divers-Watch-ST166024-/271935655818Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network 1) Dial Looks correct as does bezel 2)looks like some serious corrosion/pitting on the case (as seen in the movement pic) 3) the dial and hands look so new, that it seems suspicious, even though the description claims they are original. What do you guys think? The waters of the 'Bay are treacherous, so wanted some experienced guides before I waded in. Thanks so much in advance, guys! Edited to add: I plan on offering a fair bit less then the BiN price.
I am no expert on these, speak to Kox who is! But the hands on the second one really do not look original to the watch in my humble. Dial I am not so sure about.
Hi Personally , I would avoid both.... I also seem to remember a problem with the ebay seller ' watch-navi ' who had a number of watches put together by his Watchmaker in Hong Kong....if I find the thread I'll post it here. Best - Neil
http://www.ebay.com/itm/151773654518?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:ITPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network looks like a better buy
I am quite shocked by the price rise for these models.. Both look like a redial/relume. Two years ago you could buy these 100% original for 2-2.5k euro..
Looks like a late 1960s looking at the crown with 22 grooves (late '67 or early '68 to end of production), original Naiad crown?
The bezel looks like an earlier dated bezel though 1964 - medium font - flat top '3' - pointed top '4' - no serif on '1'. No Tritium on 5 minute markers... the later version 1969 - medium font - rounded top '3' - flat top '4' - angled serif on '1'.
Hi Crown is correct for a 27mill serial Watch....screw down rather than Naiad. Bezel insert is a bit of a mess and any Collector is going to want to sort that out - so probably not worth debating the finer points ....so for the money you may want to look elsewhere , probably worthwhile posting a WTB on here. Best - Neil
Welp, dang it if I didn't find another example I have a question about. Here is a 165.014, sans big triangle obviously. Bezel seems to be in good shape (is it original?), dial lume has gone a bit brown, but not terrible and we've lost the lume in the second hand, hour and minute hands look ok. The engraving on the back is weak. Crown looks like a replacement. Bracelet, but replacement endlinks. http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-OME...AUTO-STAINLESS-STEEL-MENS-WATCH-/281770586125Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network What do you guys think?