- Posts
- 77
- Likes
- 43
maximilian g
·I hope that this creates interest with members?
I bought an early sm300 with out a bezel again, this time a Huguenin Freres case. The main difference appears to be that the click ruby holes are shallow with no space for a spring? The case has been cleaned thoroughly and they are just three shallow holes.
I bought the watch from a professional diver who bought it new from a jeweller in Jersey in 1963. I have photos of him using it and a letter of provenance to go with it so I know that it’s genuine.
1. Archer advised in an earlier thread that , the components i needed were rubies x 3 springs x 3 a bezel spring and the bezel.
2. The components for a 1650324 and 1660324 are as I understand it a bezel, bezel spring ( of a different shape) and a self contained insert containing a spring and a non ruby ?
3. If this is the case then there are also differing components used from different manufactures of period 165024 and 166024 watch cases ?
4. I have picked up over the years period 60' parts and have a selection of 60's bezels. One of them has horizontal faint / fine lines on the castellated edging round the bezel for presumably better grip? Have any of you got the same type of bezel and was it particular to a specific manufacturer?
5. I have noticed a very slight difference in size / gauge/ weight with bezels, is this to do with different material used? Possibly the stainless steel (Stainless 316L is 16-18% Chromium and 10.5 - 13% nickel) or Acier Staybrite (Acier Staybrite is 18% Chromium and 12% nickel)?
It would be really usefull to hear from other members that have collections and have come accross variations over the years.
If it is possible to please keep this on thread, it would be good to compare the differences between the case manufacturers for the seamaster 300's 165024 and 166024 as a reference for members.
Thank you 😀
I bought an early sm300 with out a bezel again, this time a Huguenin Freres case. The main difference appears to be that the click ruby holes are shallow with no space for a spring? The case has been cleaned thoroughly and they are just three shallow holes.
I bought the watch from a professional diver who bought it new from a jeweller in Jersey in 1963. I have photos of him using it and a letter of provenance to go with it so I know that it’s genuine.
1. Archer advised in an earlier thread that , the components i needed were rubies x 3 springs x 3 a bezel spring and the bezel.
2. The components for a 1650324 and 1660324 are as I understand it a bezel, bezel spring ( of a different shape) and a self contained insert containing a spring and a non ruby ?
3. If this is the case then there are also differing components used from different manufactures of period 165024 and 166024 watch cases ?
4. I have picked up over the years period 60' parts and have a selection of 60's bezels. One of them has horizontal faint / fine lines on the castellated edging round the bezel for presumably better grip? Have any of you got the same type of bezel and was it particular to a specific manufacturer?
5. I have noticed a very slight difference in size / gauge/ weight with bezels, is this to do with different material used? Possibly the stainless steel (Stainless 316L is 16-18% Chromium and 10.5 - 13% nickel) or Acier Staybrite (Acier Staybrite is 18% Chromium and 12% nickel)?
It would be really usefull to hear from other members that have collections and have come accross variations over the years.
If it is possible to please keep this on thread, it would be good to compare the differences between the case manufacturers for the seamaster 300's 165024 and 166024 as a reference for members.
Thank you 😀
Edited: