This watch again brings into disrepute the word, or concept of unpolished. Its an absurd idea, that a 50 year old watch is valuable because it looks like it has been chewed by a crocodile with tungsten teeth. I blame the Rolex trade for this ludicrous idea, along with many other ills of the second hand market.
An unpolished watch is only valuable IF it has also retained its original finish, or much of it. Not one that has been tumbled through life for decades, (as arguably it should have been). Rolexes were produced in far larger numbers than Speedmasters. Also of course there are three or four collectable Rolex models from the same period, so a much larger pool of watches. So there exists a larger number of Rolexes bought and put away unused or little worn that have come down through time unscathed. I think this is the concept "unpolished" is meant to convey - a watch that has had so little use that the original lines and finish are predominant.
Speedmasters were even more tool watches than Rolex, and very, very few have remained in drawers unworn. I have only ever seen one straight lug speedmaster that was unworn. One. I have seen numerous unpolished, and unworn vintage rolex.
To the OP watch....
Its a useful, enjoyable watch - at a price. That price has to take into account a full movement service with plenty of parts replacement, and bear in mind it will always be held back in terms of value by the Algae plots and the way the case has been refinished.
I would get an extract to make sure no funny business in the movement - that is extra funny business beyond the wire repair.
As a cheap 105.012 with an attractive dial body colour, I like it. I could live with those plots, and the rest of it, at a price.
That price has to reflect a restoration cost of $1000 to 2000.
Most will throw their hands up and say they can do it cheaper.
They can, but they will end up with a watch I would not want.
Click to expand...