The lugs are too wide and I think the step in the bevel is not the same as a 6340. The last picture shows the inside of the case back, but it's not legible. Do you know if it is inscribed 6340?
The dial also looks wrong to me, and yes - there should be the word "swiss" at the bottom.
There are several areas of concern with this wastch in my opinion, I would stay away from it.
judging from these details
i will continue to hard study.
The inside of the case back appears genuine and is identical to the 6340 of SteveG referenced in Bill's post below. The case numbers differ by only 4 - 379054 to 379058 and the movement numbers are also very close - 53704X
The size (37mm) is the same as SteveG and both date from the early 1960s. Apart from the starburst dial and Swiss (always a bit hit and miss with VC), both look very similar. The dial does put me off a little - is it enamel?
This may take an intervening comment by Alex or Dean, but there's no Maltese Cross on the crown either. That vintage may not have had crosses on the crown, but perhaps worth checking, and in an article on the marque, the image did not show one either. You might want to use the article's images for comparison.
I recently learned that Patek Philippes from that era had no Calatrava cross on their crowns either.
in the case inset? Looks too big and may not be original. Aside from the aesthetics, a misaligned winding stem could create uneven wear.
The SWISS could still be present under the bezel. In deference to Tony's comments, we've seen a few authenticated examples without SWISS at 6 o'clock, guilloche dials IIRC, but the other 99% were cleaned or redialed so its absence isn't absolutely definitive but requires further investigation.
No, and I believe that I (and others) have mentioned this previously. Not all dials were marked "SWISS". So the absence of such lettering is not, by itself, a cause for concern.