Forums Latest Auctions Members

105.012-63 service at STS - opinions on what to have done

  1. Stuie

    Stuie Aug 25, 2017


    As the title says I am finally in a position to have my cal 321 movement serviced.
    The watch is currently with STS but they are waiting till i source a part** to make the 321 period correct.

    I asked for the following work only.

    - Service movement
    - Ultrasonic clean case - no polishing etc
    - Colour match missing lume on minute hand (purists may disagree but I would rather have it looking decent)
    - Polish Crystal

    So pretty minimal stuff in an attempt to kept it as original as possible.
    Is there anything else I should ask for ?

    My question to you speedy collectors what are the thoughts on replacing the crystal ?
    STS asked if I wanted it replacing but I have declined so far.
    My understanding is that the original crystal is shallower than replacements - or can people confirm a part number that would be identical ?
    Put another way with regards to keeping it original; is a crystal replacement deem acceptable for a vintage speed master?

    **Referencing the Moon Watch Only mine is an early 105.012 featuring a 321 2nd gen and therefore should have the symmetrical clutch coupling bridge as opposed to the asymmetrical that is installed at the moment.

    1.JPG 3.JPG Omega 320-1724 symmetrical bridge.jpg
    Etp095 and Seaborg like this.
  2. efauser

    efauser I ♥ karma!!! Aug 25, 2017

    My opinion on the crystal is, unless it's chipped cracked or crazed, I'd just have it polished.
    Kmart, Andy K, Larry S and 1 other person like this.
  3. Andy K

    Andy K Dreaming about winning an OFfie one day. Aug 25, 2017

    Lovely watch. :) How hard is that part to source? I would probably live with the asymmetrical bridge rather than putting off service. I am not in front of my copy of MWO, do they have a strict serial range for the bridge? According to e-Moonwatch Only either is ok for a 105.012-63, although your SN and dial seem to indicate a very early example.
    dbane007 likes this.
  4. td69

    td69 Aug 25, 2017

    I personally don't think the asymmetrical bridge is entirely wrong for 105.012-63. You have one rare bird Speedy Pro.
  5. bama2141

    bama2141 Aug 25, 2017

    Not sure if they already consider it part of the service, but I always replace the mainspring.
  6. gemini4

    gemini4 Hoarder Of Speed Aug 25, 2017

    The assymetrical bridge is correct, I believe, for a 105.012-63.
    JohnSteed likes this.
  7. Spacefruit

    Spacefruit Prolific Speedmaster Hoarder Aug 26, 2017

    First thing to note is changing that bridge alone will not make it into a correct movement - if it is indeed incorrect. A bridge change will fool most, even me probably, but not an experienced 321 technician when he dismantles it. (One of the reasons I service everything).

    I must say I did think all -63's had a symmetric clutch bridge - but I could be wrong. I have observed a few, but they are so rare the numbers are low.

    Examining your photos the bridge is dark, dirty even, and the movement is not pristine. So I wonder if it has had a lot of work or if it is original to the watch. - both are possible, I am just telling you how my mind works. I must admit it does look slightly out of place. We have to ask is the bridge added to the movement or has an entire movement been added to the watch, OR is the movement entirely original and original to the watch.

    The first thing to do is try for an extract. The number falls into expected ranges for a -63.

    Next I would have the movement checked by Simon Freese. (There are some fine watchmaker members here who have similar knowledge but they are outside UK). He knows 321's like the back of his hand and I would ask him to look for evidence of parts exchange. I cannot decide what I think on this watch but my intuition says that it might have had a lot of work and exhibits what we could call environmental deterioration. So it is possible that along the way a bridge was changed, but surely then other parts were changed too. How many? You need an expert to answer. If the extract comes back 105012 and Simon says the movement parts all look original to the watch and fit the movement, then I would move on and restore the watch as is, with the asymmetric bridge.

    So we are now looking not at a service, but a restoration.

    Perhaps we could have a roll call of -63 movement shots?

    I'll do mine later.
    Stuie, Seaborg and nonuffinkbloke like this.
  8. jpo

    jpo Aug 26, 2017

    Sounds reasonable. Although I would still be nervous to do anything but ask that they do not touch the case, ultrasonic or otherwise.
  9. Mr Blond

    Mr Blond Aug 30, 2017

    I've just had my 321 serviced at STS they did a really good job. I personally wouldn't replace the crystal, keep it original as possible