105.012 corrected case back

[Adden01]

Has anyone seen a corrected case back like this before? I’d love to learn more about it, was this done as part of a service?
Thanks!

Edited: Dec 26, 2023

 

[Spacefruit]

I’ve seen it the other way around - and the font was the same, not like here which is quite different.

this makes me wonder who did it

 

[Aludic]

Agree, I've seen the other way around too... a double signed 105.012 with a 145.022-68 as the 'correction'. This particular case appears to be a novelty to me.

 

[Dan S]

Weird.

 

[Davidt]

So it’s a 145.012-68 (ie not even a 67). There very little chance this is an original caseback imo.

Obviously this is conjecture but I’d say a realistic scenario here is a genuine 105.012 that went back for a factory service a couple of years later and for whatever reason the caseback needed to be replaced. In lieu of a service case-back as there perhaps wasn’t such a thing, this is what was used.

Edited: Dec 26, 2023

 

[Adden01]

The extract states its a 105.012 manufactured in July 1967

 

[Asturianucu]

Adden01

The extract states its a 105.012 manufactured in July 1967

What date is the extract?

The crown looks like quite new to me, I mean a service crown, so may be the back as well. cheers.

 

[Adden01]

Extract is from 2021. The photos are from a few years ago, I’ve since replaced the crown with the appropriate version. Pusher are incorrect but I’ve had trouble finding those.

 

[Asturianucu]

Hmmm, I find it a little strange that Omega would issue an extract if things on the watch are not correct.

So, don't get me wrong but, imho, with those things recently changed or not correct, who knows who could punch that case back?. It seems strange to me. Cheers.

 

[Adden01]

The extract is based on the serial number, there is no inspection.

 

[Asturianucu]

Adden01

The extract is based on the serial number, there is no inspection.

They didn't even ask you (or to a previuos owner) for pictures?...My God, it's no wonder that fake models have sneaked in and that those services are currently canceled at Omega.

That said, for me that case back is strange, fonts are not the same either, imho, you will hardly be able to know who actually punched those numbers. If the extract was given to a previous owner, could be a logical thing to think that following the extract that owner had those numbers stamped on the case back at any watch shop. Although I wouldn't worry too much, I would just enjoy that beautiful watch. Cheers.

 

[pdxleaf]

This scratch-out line is so uneven that I would bet it was not done by Omega service center.



Can you read this mark? It was serviced at least once.



It seems like a well-meaning gesture not meant to deceive. Quite on the contrary.

 

[Seaborg]

There are additional watchmaker markings on the "top right" and "bottom right" lugs.

My guess: the previous owner ordered an extract based on the serial, figured out that it's a 105.012, then scratched the "service" caseback to match the EoA.

 

[pdxleaf]

Seaborg

There are additional watchmaker markings on the "top right" and "bottom right" lugs...

That still kills me. It's one thing to scratch the inside of the caseback, but it seems crazier to mark the lugs. Just goes to show people were practical before the crazy collectors showed up. 😁

 

[mac_omega]

never saw a ref# with dot between 105 and 012 - weird...

 

[dsio]

Davidt

So it’s a 145.012-68 (ie not even a 67). There very little chance this is an original caseback imo.

Obviously this is conjecture but I’d say a realistic scenario here is a genuine 105.012 that went back for a factory service a couple of years later and for whatever reason the caseback needed to be replaced. In lieu of a service case-back as there perhaps wasn’t such a thing, this is what was used.

That’s about the most plausible explanation I can think of too, could have been an engraved case back that the new owner wanted replaced and this was the closest replacement back in the day

 

[Adden01]

Seaborg

There are additional watchmaker markings on the "top right" and "bottom right" lugs.

My guess: the previous owner ordered an extract based on the serial, figured out that it's a 105.012, then scratched the "service" caseback to match the EoA.

Amazing! I never saw those marks in the lugs before. They’re hard to make out but one appears to be a 1991 date and the other a series of numbers 181552. I’ll take a closer look when I have access to a loupe. Thanks for the sharp eyes!