- Posts
- 3
- Likes
- 0
145.022 68st
- Posts
- 2,293
- Likes
- 4,580
repoman
·hard to see from the photo, but what is the movement serial number ?
- Posts
- 482
- Likes
- 711
Om3ga321
·Wrong case back.
145.012-68 exists with a 321 but a 145.022-68 must be an 861.
145.012-68 exists with a 321 but a 145.022-68 must be an 861.
- Posts
- 12,108
- Likes
- 40,240
abrod520
·Definitely want to see the serial number before passing any judgment but, with the incorrect caseback and bezel at least, I'm starting to get a bit suspicious that it's a franken.
Also, are those pushers mis-matched or is it me?
Also, are those pushers mis-matched or is it me?
- Posts
- 593
- Likes
- 1,519
- Posts
- 64
- Likes
- 89
ar.parask13
·I was always under the impression that the .022 designation signified the transition to the 861.
There are a lot of stories abou omega using whatever they had laying around to put together watches so would it really be that surprising if it left the factory like that?
I can’t see the reason why anyone would use a .022 caseback since it is babsiaclly devaluing the watch unless the original one was damaged early in the ownership and these things didn’t matter then...
There are a lot of stories abou omega using whatever they had laying around to put together watches so would it really be that surprising if it left the factory like that?
I can’t see the reason why anyone would use a .022 caseback since it is babsiaclly devaluing the watch unless the original one was damaged early in the ownership and these things didn’t matter then...
- Posts
- 3
- Likes
- 0
- Posts
- 64
- Likes
- 89
- Posts
- 3
- Likes
- 0
Harpzky
·Acceding to Bob’s watches that puts it in 1968 as per the caseback
- Posts
- 64
- Likes
- 89
ar.parask13
·I think that there are members here that can offer a more informed view.
At first glance it seems like the bezel and the pushers are later replacements. The dial seems ok. The hands do too but I am not certain. The most peculiar part is the caseback.
If you ask me I wouldn’t mind keeping it abs wearing it. Add an uncle seiko or a forstner bracelet and enjoy it! I always cringe at the idea of people taking watches apart...
- Posts
- 10,309
- Likes
- 16,133
padders
··Oooo subtitles!I was always under the impression that the .022 designation signified the transition to the 861.
There are a lot of stories abou omega using whatever they had laying around to put together watches so would it really be that surprising if it left the factory like that?
I can’t see the reason why anyone would use a .022 caseback since it is babsiaclly devaluing the watch unless the original one was damaged early in the ownership and these things didn’t matter then...
Yes it would be massively surprising IMO. This is more likely a Franken than factory mismatch. Casebacks do get replaced on watches with inscriptions or damage. This has either been carelessly serviced or repaired at some point or is a put together. That serial is on the 321 -67,-68 overlap. My verified 145.12-68 was on 26.551m and was an early one, one of the first seen. This could well be a 145.012-67 in fact. Produced at a guess in early to mid 1968. The -67s run out at the end of Oct 1968, my watch was extract dated 1/11/68. You don’t see the transitionals until early 1969.
My informed view is that it is has had a caseback and bezel swap at the very least. Get an extract (it’ll just say 145.012, not specify the iteration) and if I’m right find a -67 back and you are in business. Mostly.
Edited:
- Posts
- 2,423
- Likes
- 4,677
mr_yossarian
·Acceding to Bob’s watches that puts it in 1968 as per the caseback
Edited:
- Posts
- 23,489
- Likes
- 52,217
Dan S
·Yes it would be massively surprising IMO. This is more likely a Franken than factory mismatch. Casebacks do get replaced on watches with inscriptions or damage. This has either been carelessly serviced or repaired at some point or is a put together. That serial is on the 321 -67,-68 overlap. My verified 145.12-68 was on 26.551m and was an early one, one of the first seen. This could well be a 145.012-67 in fact. Produced at a guess in early to mid 1968. The -67s run out at the end of Oct 1968, my watch was extract dated 1/11/68. You don’t see the transitionals until early 1969.
My informed view is that it is has had a caseback and bezel swap at the very least. Get an extract (it’ll just say 145.012, not specify the iteration) and if I’m right find a -67 back and you are in business. Mostly.
Agree, 26,547,xxx is extremely likely to be a 145.012-67.
Similar threads
- Posts
- 25
- Views
- 574
- Posts
- 9
- Views
- 1K
- Posts
- 35
- Views
- 1K
- Posts
- 23
- Views
- 2K
- Posts
- 16
- Views
- 543