The pictures are bad. However the second hand appears to be incorrect? I can't see any silver rehaut, the back has a lot of case opening scratches on it. So it would not be an example of a "good" example or are those minor issues? http://www.ebay.it/itm/ULTRA-RARE-O...2-/321664688024?ssPageName=ADME:SS:SS:US:3160Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network
Second hand is wrong, might be tricky actually to acquire being in Italy as their postal service is unreliable, be careful with how its shipped and how you're covered if you did go ahead.
Beware, the dial is the wrong dial for the series. The dial on this watch has a TSWISS MADET dial. I suspect that the hour and minute hands are also incorrect.
I note that the movement number falls slightly outside Speedmaster101's given range for the series. There was discussion of the significance of "Adjusted 2 positions" and "OXG" in a recent thread, but I don't believe that a definitive decision as to whether these signify transplantation from a Seamaster or are correct for some 1962 Speedmasters was arrived at. Can anyone give a ruling on this or are we in an area of "known unknowns"?
I have seen close T marked dials on late 105.002, but that does not mean they are factory original. MWO calls for all 002's to have no T markings. The movement no at 19583xxx is earlier than any 002 I have seen and believed original. The hand is an easy replace, but it indicates history where parts were substituted. A minute hand here, a movement there, or even a dial. I would say on balance, I would call this an assembly, but that is an instinctual decision based on circumstantial evidence. Not a buy for me.
I sent the Seller a question regarding the movement number. His expert answer is below: Hi, the mov number is 19xxx and it is good for 105.002
Did he say the same for the dial? Movement a bit too early, dial a bit too late. How did they come to meet each other?
as far as I have seen in the past, all speedies with " adjusted 2 positions " ,were delivered to the USA. kind regards. achim
Sorry I would like to correct: it seems that a few 105.002 in 19.833.xxx were delivered February 64, thus produced either end 63 or January 64, but this does nit change about the 'No T' rule. Regarding series in 20.52x.xxx they seem to have been delivered until April, thus probably produced before April and for this reason should not have Ts. Exceptions might however be possible.