Forums Latest Members

Vintage Omega Seamaster 300 - Ex Military Dating From Late 1960's

  1. seamonster Respectable Member Jun 20, 2013

    Posts
    1,426
    Likes
    191
    aaa.JPG
  2. JimInOz Melbourne Australia Jun 21, 2013

    Posts
    15,399
    Likes
    32,159
    Respectable Member Seamonster

    I suspect the hands are newer than the watch, other than that all looks OK to me (based on sellers disclosure) but I'm not an expert yet!

    The excellent condition could be attributed to being in a kitbag for years, away from sunlight, wear and weather.

    The eBay provenance has a certain validity as many military personnel "lost" their watches, paid a pittance, and kept them for profit or sentimentality.

    Personally I would be prepared to gamble on it if I was in the market for an ex-mil version, but I have my lovely Watchco.

    Bear also in mind that I have consumed 1500 millilitres of Irish wisdom, so my judgement, while well intentioned, may need verification from those more educated in ex-mil 300s.

    Respectably Yours

    Jim

    PS: To all other members, Seamonster is the only person who I will address with the salutation "Respectable Member".
    Respect returns respect.
     
  3. seamonster Respectable Member Jun 21, 2013

    Posts
    1,426
    Likes
    191

    Respectable Member JiminOz

    I thank you for the information, regarding this SM 300. It is not that I am going to buy it. At this time, I cannot afford to buy anything that is of interest to me. Gathering knowledge from members of this forum costs me nothing and I really appreciate.

    I think all members of this forum are respectable and of course, including your good-self.

    Thank-you.
     
  4. MyVintageOmega Jun 21, 2013

    Posts
    926
    Likes
    487
    I agree......the hands are a later replacement. Would love to see the movement (what cal) & condition. For a watch in such fine condition and wasn't overly worn......what happened to the bracelet? Thanx for the post.
     
  5. pitpro Likes the game. Jun 21, 2013

    Posts
    3,073
    Likes
    3,552
    Crown does not appear to be screw down as Seller states, And as normally seen on
    W10. There were Early W10 delivered with Standard dials(no"T") and the first batch were delivered
    with Niad crowns. They were later replaced with Screw-down crowns by the MOD. After
    crown replacement they were marked "A/" in front of the serial #, on the bottom line.
    From trying to follow the W10, it would seem that this serial would not be considered
    "Early" and the dial should have the "T". So, I am guessing the dial is a replacement.
    The hands are of course, not original. To me the caseback looks ok. If I'm wrong on any of this,
    please correct.
     
  6. Dash1 Jun 22, 2013

    Posts
    1,823
    Likes
    3,497
    It looks pretty genuine to me, shame about the new hands (the seconds hand doesn't even look like an Omega one). Of course it would be nice if it the dial was a big triangle with a circled 'T' but is quite possibly the original one. The seller stating it has a screw-down crown is confusing since it isn't, but since the case back engraving does not have the 'A' that signifies a screw-down crown, that is correct.
    I think these military 300's are a relative bargain at the moment.
     
  7. Dash1 Jun 22, 2013

    Posts
    1,823
    Likes
    3,497
    It would never have had a bracelet since one can't easily be fitted with the fixed strap bars. Most likely supplied on a Nato type strap originally.
     
    MyVintageOmega likes this.
  8. seamonster Respectable Member Jun 22, 2013

    Posts
    1,426
    Likes
    191
    Respectable Member Ash

    The 100% authentic and top condition ones, whether military or not, will not come cheap. We have yet to come across one for sale, so far.

    Thank-you.
     
  9. seamonster Respectable Member Jun 22, 2013

    Posts
    1,426
    Likes
    191

    Respectable Member Ash

    If an example like this happens to appear on the market and it is for sale, I do not think it will be cheap.

    Picture: Credit Mr Marcello Pisani

    Thank-you.
     
    SM 300 Royal Navy.jpg
  10. LouS Mrs Nataf's Other Son Staff Member Jun 22, 2013

    Posts
    6,713
    Likes
    18,259
    You know, you see enough of these scanned watches, you begin to want one with a bent second hand...:confused:
     
  11. MMMD unaffiliated curmudgeonly absurdist & polyologist Jun 22, 2013

    Posts
    4,642
    Likes
    31,001
    I got mine:

    [​IMG]

    I like those scans. I suspect they keep the price down, and you know the watch is running.
     
  12. pitpro Likes the game. Jun 23, 2013

    Posts
    3,073
    Likes
    3,552
    Please see the posts by M. Pisani refering to watches with serials around 22x.
    I believe that it is thought that only the Earliest issues were Standard dials
    without the "T" According to this thinking, this watch would Not qualify to be
    missing the "T".
    http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showthread.php?t=56693

    "back engravings and lugs weldings look ok ..
    btw this is the 3rd watch in the 22X/67 delivery range we see without the " A " and so still with the snap crown ( aka " Najad " ) .
    the dial for me is a replacement as we have seen many W10 with much lower delivery numbers arrived to the present days with the " small T " on the dial.
    in my records I have 6 watches from 9X/67 up to 21X/67 with the pristine " small T " dial. "
     
  13. seamonster Respectable Member Jun 23, 2013

    Posts
    1,426
    Likes
    191
    Respectable Member pitpro

    From the information it can be assumed, gone are the days when one can get an authentic and clean example, at a give-away price.

    Thank-you.
     
  14. Dash1 Jun 24, 2013

    Posts
    1,823
    Likes
    3,497
    Agreed!
     
  15. Dash1 Jun 24, 2013

    Posts
    1,823
    Likes
    3,497
    I'm not 100% convinced, while he obviously has fantacstic knowledge (and a fine collection) of these military 300's, his reasoning that since he has seen examples with lower numbers displaying the 'T' means that all subsequent ones should have a 'T' is seriously flawed. If only the world was that simple!