Omega

This reference is magic, and a bit mysterious as it is a kind of transitional one, between the CK 2998 and the ST 105 003. Made only during one year or two. Rarer than any other CK, being 2915 or 2998. Add a nice patina, like this one, and you have someth...  

There is a point where patina becomes corrosion. This is that point (in my eyes).

. . . although I have doubts about the pushers and, to a lesser extent, the crown. But the 'face' is altogether original, in my humble opinion. 🤙🏻

...  

But this time, for me. I'm certain it has a very, very happy owner however. To each their own!

...but some patina looks like damage. In the case of dive watches, it looks like water got into the cases. Not sure how this dial got this way. If it were my watch I would love it, but I'd wonder if the manufacturer were using defective materials...

...  

It’s a wreck It’s like saying that this is a nice Porsche ...  

When they were like twice or three thousand USD…

And bought the bracelet later, a good looking thing.. And had an exhibition caseback to boot.

It looks like it reacted with the watch surface.

. . . with a consensus of early '60s as most likely. The dial of Nicolas' 105.002 subject does not have 'T' markings, but the badging of tritium dials likely occurred after its debut by at least a year or two. So yes, the degradation could well be due to ... 

If you blow up the photo it looks as if the markers melted. Perhaps they’ve all fallen off and we are looking at the glue remains, but that seems less likely

So many have commented on the condition of the dial but none has recognised that it is possibly a wrong dial for this reference... I would expect an A5 dial with much longer luminous indexes reaching the subdials combined with low "SWISS MADE". The watch ... 

. . . is entirely possible. Impressed, Art