Two Mil SM300 will be offered at the 13 Dec 2017 Bonhams sale:

1) http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24235/lot/36/
From the only picture dial, hands an bezel look authentic . So far no extract mentioned, further pictures of caseback required to give an exact statement.

2) http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24235/lot/138/
That watch had been offered already at the 21 Jun 2017 sale, but did not sell for whatever reason.
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24232/lot/50/
...and was discussed in following thread.
https://omegaforums.net/threads/royal-navy-seamaster-300.48191/page-5
Bonhams lowered the reserve to 15000 GBP. As mentioned before, except of the baton hands it is a very nice mil SM300.

Looking forward to the results.

 

Hmmm

 

1) sold for 45.000 GBP including premium
2) sold for 27.500 GBP including premium

...so 2) has been sold this time, bute the result looks a little bit disapointing to me.

 

Something not right with 2

 

I would really appreciate if someone could point out the faults on the lower selling watch.
many thanks in advance
Richard in Zurich

 

Yes and me

 

Not faults just differences , watch 2 has batton hands and the MOD T printed dial .
Batton hands were usually on the first series issued to RN around 1967. No T on
dial and SBS issue . Approx 50 issued from first batch .

Lot 36 has sword hands and Omega issue T printed dial . So its correct for year dial and hands
wise , also it came with ,copies of vendor's Royal Marines Certificate of Service, Special Boat Service Royal Marines Testimonial, Certificate of Qualifications and Certificate of Discharge

G.

 

Thank you mr g

 

As already mentioned in my first post, the only issue with 2) were the baton hands.

At the time I started that thread no proof of provenence was given for 1) and only one picture shown. Sorry that I did not update when Bonhams added further info, but due to missing interest about my post I forgot that.

 

Thank you Mr.G and Omegaman for your input. Very much appreciated!
Cheers from Switzerland
Richard

 

Apparently 1 no extract and 2 was relumed

 

Being discussed on mwr

 

A few thoughts on these ...

#2 (lot 138) has a matching extract and within one of the correct narrow serial ranges. Produced september 1969. And yes it's the same watch below.
I really don't know why Bonhams didn't show this in the listning or even mention the production date (like they have done with so many others). Yes, baton hands are not correct for a 69 production. MoD painted T is not as desirable as the Omega thin T, but still correct - on a BT dial !
I don't think I have ever seen any non BT dial where the T is placed below center, only above. So that would hold me back in regards to price even with confirmed extract.




#1 (lot 36) doesn't seem to have a confirmed extract (mentioned anyway) and the serial range 2628x is not within what is "usually" seen. "Normal" range is either 2629x or 2630x. But of course a big plus with the owners discharge and service papers, but it doesn't make the watch correct per se (but it properly is). A big plus with the thin T and the nice correct B6BT bezel. But not a BT dial (but correct placed T), so that's properly why it didn't made any record.

The big triangle dial was a part of the original MoD specs. The non BT dials are still ok, especially on w10's, but also on some RN300's before the specs were fully meet by Omega. But less desirable eitherway.

 

We’ve been waiting for you on this one kox

 

Yep. Although the extract was mentioned this time "Accompaniments: Extract from the Archives", it was not shown as at the first offer in June. Still there was no clear picture of it, but the extract was at least presented in a map at the last picture shown.

Well... let me help you out on this

Totally agree with that.

 

Omegaman,
since you are already using my photo from a 10 year old thread on MWR, let me add a bit to the confusion and perhaps shed a little light too. The BT on the left of my pic has a caseback A/5xx/70 over seahorse. It does not have a serial# that is correct for a RN300 and thus no certificate. The watch sold on Ebay in Nov 2014 for 8300€.
According to the Omega-Certificate from 2006 the non BT-watch on the right was delivered to GB in Nov. 1970 and has a serial 2890x. The caseback on this watch however is engraved with an A-number from 1969 that is within 3 digits of the Phillips one sold in May 2017 - and that had a serial 2629x, so serial#s are w a y apart. Who knows how to make sense of this.... As mentioned in numerous posts previously, the MOT apparently swapped parts back and forth pretty carelessly...
Cheers from Old Europe
Richard.
P.S. I'd offer an arm and a leg, maybe 2, for one of those B6BT bezels.....

 

Indeed they did, and that's what makes the hunt for one with correct configuration (or assumed correct by the present collectors) even harder.

Fair enough, but can you find one more example and perhaps a thin T one? I think you would agree that the share of correct non BT dials with the T below center would be very close to 0%

 

Kox
It's been a looong time of discussion with no resolution for 10 years..... That watch was last traded in 2005. who would have interest in faking a circle "T" at that time when the value was perhaps 2500 £? There are similar broad "T"s on other watches stamped by the MOT - Omegas, IWCs, even Subs... Who is going to clear this up? The watch in question - as mentioned - has a Omega certificate stating GB delivery and military marking.
Here are some of the old threads:

http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...amaster-300-dial-variations&p=45778#post45778

http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showthread.php?3356-Old-Friends-revisited-(RN-SM-300)&highlight=Omega Seamaster 300

 

@ Richard G:
Sorry for using your picture without permission. I've just found it on my hard drive as I was looking up for a "Non-BT-Low-circled-T" dial. Thanks a lot for sharing your information and clearing some things up.

@ kox:
You are absolutely right, these two are the only I could find. And yes, usually a Non-BT dial has a thin T above the center.

But who judges what is "correct" and what is wrong for these watches? Pretty much all the information about Mil SM300 is based on observations from heavily used, sometimes molested watches.
We can be sure that the MoD watchmakers did not care about authenticity, because their job was to keep these tool watches running at lowest possible cost. We can delimit the serial numbers to a pretty close range. We know when the Naiad crown was superseded by the screw down.

But do we know for sure who added the T on the dials, the MoD or Omega? Even if Omega states so it is a rather vague information. And who decided to put it on top or below the center? The DEF-STAN does not prescribe a specific position on the dial. Interestingly, the added drawing at issue 1 shows a Non-BT dial with a T below center and baton hands... exactly like the bespoken 558/70. So maybe that watch is the only correct one and all the others are not? Just exaggerating a little, hope you get my point.

 

@ Omegaman:
No sweat! I thoroughly enjoy discussions such as this one. Is is just my personal feeling that they unfortunately have become scarce in the past years? In my mind we had more and livelier ones in the past.
Cheers from Switzerland

Richard

.....Another one that needs a bezel....