- Posts
- 11
- Likes
- 11
105.012 corrected case back
- Posts
- 5,331
- Likes
- 24,390
Spacefruit
··Prolific Speedmaster HoarderI’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
this makes me wonder who did it
- Posts
- 1,483
- Likes
- 6,491
Aludic
··@SpeedyBirthYearAgree, 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.
- Posts
- 24,585
- Likes
- 54,591
Dan S
·Weird.
- Posts
- 13,278
- Likes
- 23,060
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.
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:
- Posts
- 11
- Likes
- 11
Adden01
·The extract states its a 105.012 manufactured in July 1967
- Posts
- 30
- Likes
- 96
Asturianucu
·The extract states its a 105.012 manufactured in July 1967
The crown looks like quite new to me, I mean a service crown, so may be the back as well. cheers.
- Posts
- 11
- Likes
- 11
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.
- Posts
- 30
- Likes
- 96
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.
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.
- Posts
- 11
- Likes
- 11
Adden01
·The extract is based on the serial number, there is no inspection.
- Posts
- 30
- Likes
- 96
Asturianucu
·The extract is based on the serial number, there is no inspection.
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.
- Posts
- 6,299
- Likes
- 21,483
pdxleaf
··"I cut it TWICE and it's still short!"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.
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.
- Posts
- 1,566
- Likes
- 3,676
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.
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.
- Posts
- 6,299
- Likes
- 21,483
pdxleaf
··"I cut it TWICE and it's still short!"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. 😁
- Posts
- 3,572
- Likes
- 7,609
mac_omega
·never saw a ref# with dot between 105 and 012 - weird...
- Posts
- 34,799
- Likes
- 39,363
dsio
··Ash @ ΩFSo 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.
- Posts
- 11
- Likes
- 11
Adden01
·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.
