Is it reasonable to think US$1400 might be enough to pick up an acceptable & not too beaten up 166.024 ?

Or am I just too much of a cheapskate

 

Oh well

Given the prices of decent all original ones, I was wondering if it is worth picking up a partly restored one with the original movement & maybe spending a bit on finishing off the restoration, as long as (a) it doesn't need too much doing to it (b) is mechanically sound & (c) I wouldn't end up spending the same as buying a good all original.

It would mean working to a budget & a bit of hunting, but is it worth doing ?

 

Any thoughts on this movement ? Looks like it's had bits added recently and the person selling it sells a lot of Geneve's from the same period...

I suppose what I'm asking is, how much does it matter if the movement has been properly serviced. Wouldn't omega replace worn out bits anyway ?

 

Clarification: how much does it matter, as long the watch has been properly serviced

 

Maybe not at all, but factor in the big dent in the edge of the case and the eroded stainless on the lower left (cleaned rust; yes SS can rust,depends on the alloy)
chances are this movement was added later to a rehabilitated case.

 

Thanks. I was at the Omega Service Centre this morning to drop off my old Seamaster & had a chat about a few things while I was there.

I showed them the pic & they didn't like the erosion at lower left either, although they thought the movement looked good. Interestingly, their view on value was roughly similar to mine & that it would be ok as a useable watch as long it didn't go in the water

Then they showed me a totally refurbished Seamaster 300, with a 165.0324 case. Although it was an original movement with a 2 year guarantee, it was basically a new watch that Omega will recognise as "genuine" because of the movement. Not sure if that makes a lot of sense when they are getting sniffy about Watchco SM 300's, but it didn't really "speak to me" as a possible purchase either. They wanted £2,400 (US$3,750) for it - I'd rather get a decent vintage one for that type of money.

 

Had a look at their eBay shop today & I see what you mean.

Anyway, I'm going to pass on the one I was looking at. The money is better off used elsewhere & if I wanted to improve the case I'd eventually end up paying over £1k for a new 166.0324 case, which is not where I want to be.

Maybe I should save up for a 1960-64 (166.014) with the half bezel & arrow hands in a year or two instead

 

The more I see them the more they appeal to me, as well as the late 60's Seamaster 120's. Must be that thin bezel look that it is doing it for me.

 

Actually the earlier SM300s should really be more valuable than the later ones even with the thin bezel gone of course condition and originality being the same. IF the thin bezel on the earlier SM300 is intact then value of the watch goes up considerably. And if the early SM300 has the lollipop seconds hand then add some more to the price.