What is correct case for Omega "Big Triangle" ?

Posts
219
Likes
44
Hello gentlemen, I need your help..

My question is about well-known model of Seamaster 300 - ref. 166.024..
More precisely, it's about "Big Triangle" calendar variation of 166.024: please tell me, what is correct case ref. for "BT"?
As there were several case options of 166.024: 166.024/166.024 SP/166.024 SP2, (perhaps some others?) not all of mentioned references has been used for the "BT" with calendar. So, what it is correct case Nr.?
It's also a lot of "franken-watches" in the net, which has been assembled as is, also fakes, so it's hard to find-out what is what if you are not specialist..

Am I correct that the only case Omega officials can currently offer (if to ask them about 166.024) is complete case with code 166.0324, which is incorrect to use with the Big Triangle dial..?

Thank you in advance for your time and your attention..
 
Posts
5,856
Likes
16,763
I’m only aware of vintage calendar BT dials with 166024 or 166024-67 reference casebacks.
I believe reference 1660324 casebacks are service casebacks often seen on WatchCo examples.
 
Posts
580
Likes
755
The association between case ref 166.024 and different case makers has not yet been cleared, may be there willl be something in the soon to come “Seamaster only” book.

by the way, all 166.024 are calendar, and most of them are big triangle.

And remains true that 166.0024 or 166.0324 are furniture.
Edited:
 
Posts
1,344
Likes
1,958
I don't believe anyone knows or can say with any certainty what is definitely correct or not with SM300 case backs. The SP case backs are often present and have coeval wear, and many case backs were over stamped to accommodate which ever case back was out of stock when making up date or no date versions. The tables defining bezel types and dates on the net are also misleading.
 
Posts
219
Likes
44
Sorry for late reply - thank you, gentlemen for your answers, all clear now.

Kind regards..
 
Posts
9,595
Likes
27,663
I don't believe anyone knows or can say with any certainty what is definitely correct or not with SM300 case backs. The SP case backs are often present and have coeval wear, and many case backs were over stamped to accommodate which ever case back was out of stock when making up date or no date versions. The tables defining bezel types and dates on the net are also misleading.

There are certainly a few errors on the Seamaster 300 website, but knowing who put it up I don't think we'll see an amendment 😁