1963 or 64 Speedmaster help

ortope · May 3, 2023

Another little suspicion that something isn't 100% correct with the hands of the openers watch:

The shape of the hand's tip is blunt and not pointed how it should be!?

This is a picture of my 105.012-63 asymmetrical "T" (20.521.XXX) sold in Mexico 29th May 1964, that apparently still has its original hands.
Note the difference...

No answers received yet:
Does anyone know the difference in shape in between a 105.002 and a 105.003 case?

Cheers

heller792 · May 3, 2023

This is why I joined the watch forums, you have so much better eyes for these things than me. I assumed all the dents and scratches were from from his heavy job, there are dents on the front and scratches on the back, one is quite a deep scratch. I do admit the removal marks can be seen on the rear and part of me is wondering if he had tried to open it. I will wait and see what Simon Freese has to say when he opens it, there might be a glaring obvious sign of service when he looks.

heller792 · May 3, 2023

Amazingly Simon has sent me a report this morning, I need to have words with the Mother In Law about her memory ha! He could of had it serviced without telling her, report is below

Dear Dave

Thank you for your email, I have checked the watch for originality and evidence of previous work.

The watch has three watchmaker engravings in the case back, which would suggest that it was repaired at least three times. There are slight marks on the movement screws, showing that it has been disassembled before. The movement ring and dust cover have scratched from previous removal. This is all quite normal for a watch of this age.

The crystal is original as you can just see the original thin Omega logo at the centre.

The pushers are original

The crown is a service replacement from slightly later in Omega’s production it has 32 teeth rather than the 24 of the original. This could have been replaced as far back as 1970.

The bezel is original.

The dial and hands are original, they have an attractive patina and I will be sympathetic towards this when I stabilise the hands.

The 105.002 is indeed a relatively rare reference, as it was quickly superseded by the 105.003, which was in production for a number of years

I will proceed with the repair and be in touch as soon as the watch is ready

Best wishes

Simon

befobe · May 3, 2023

H heller792
hands are original

Ok... But like @ortope , I still don't understand the round shape of the hour hand.
This model is however a rare treasure...👍

blubarb · May 3, 2023

👍 nice watch in my opinion. I hope you are just getting the 321 serviced and nothing else changed. Calling the hands "fingers" is something I've only ever come across from the occasional UK watch enthusiast.

heller792 · May 3, 2023

blubarb
👍 nice watch in my opinion. I hope you are just getting the 321 serviced and nothing else changed. Calling the hands "fingers" is something I've only ever come across from the occasional UK watch enthusiast.

Honestly I knew it was the wrong word but I was having a total brain fog lol

padders · May 3, 2023

ortope
No answers received yet:
Does anyone know the difference in shape in between a 105.002 and a 105.003 case?

Cheers

The picture isn't fully clear cut. Some 2998 examples seem to have distinct lug bevels/facets, others just a compound curve lug profile. Same for the later Ed White. What is certain is that the 105.003-65 has distinct lug facets and is made by a different manufacturer to all the other earlier cases which were I think made by Hugenin Freres (HF). The first two 105.003 iterations, the -63 and -64 seem to have the curved lug profile. A better question might be does the 105.002-62 have the same case profile as the 2998-62 and 105.003-63? I suspect the answer is yes, but does it match all the 105.003 and 2998 versions? It seems not. Those with multiple 2998s might have more of an idea than me but we've gone down this rabbit hole before and it often ends in people claiming that all the examples with bevels were refinished that way, which personally I think is nonsense.

blubarb · May 3, 2023

https://www.chronoholic.com/post/the-omega-speedmaster-professional-a-case-study

I am looking... I think I have some pics somewhere of the 105.002 and a 105.003 cases.

But as you know, the 105.002 shares the same smaller case as the CK2998 references.

ortope · May 3, 2023

The small difference can be seen on following pictures:

105.002-62:

105.003-65:

To be honest the 105.003-65 is from a different case manufacturer, not from HF, but as far as I can remember the other 105.003-64 that I own has the same shape.

on the left a watch with the case from the unknown producer, on the right the one with the HF case
Unfortunately I didn'tt find a picture of the case back's inside of my 105.003-65, but I found this one on Chrono24:

Cheers

padders · May 3, 2023

See what I posted above. No the -64 and -65 do not have the same shape, as you say (and I already noted) they were made by different people. If the watch on the right you show is indeed a -64 then it has been refinished and bevels added. The lugs on the -63 and -64 HF cases did not originally have defined bevels, the -65 did. This is why the modern NEW321 reboot has no bevels as it is a carbon copy of the -64. As I say this rabbit hole is deep and has been discussed many times here.

heller792 · May 11, 2023

Just had these images back of the watch after service, it looks amazing now.

heller792 · May 11, 2023

Before and after

john_coburg · May 11, 2023

H heller792
Just had these images back of the watch after service, it looks amazing now.

That's looking great, Simon did a really good job. He is great, and has a couple of my pieces currently.
Where did you get the strap, if you wouldn't mind me asking? It goes very well with it.

BLOW UP · May 11, 2023

H heller792
Before and after

It's a lovely watch!
Dial blacks look significantly blacker, be very interested to know how this was achieved, or is it just down to different lighting?

heller792 · May 11, 2023

BLOW UP
It's a lovely watch!
Dial blacks look significantly blacker, be very interested to know how this was achieved, or is it just down to different lighting?

I don't know, I will be able to tell when I get it back I the same room I took the original photo on.

BLOW UP · May 11, 2023

H heller792
I don't know, I will be able to tell when I get it back I the same room I took the original photo on.

👍

ortope · May 11, 2023

Nice watch, indeed, but I would have changed the crown...

heller792 · May 11, 2023

ortope
Nice watch, indeed, but I would have changed the crown...

Changed the crown for a new one or find an original?

ortope · May 11, 2023

H heller792
Changed the crown for a new one or find an original?

Before:

After: A1 crown

heller792 · May 12, 2023

I'm actually gob smacked at how intricate these things are considering I've never owned a watch until now, I know everyone in the forum is an expert or has great knowledge of these things but I'm a complete amateur

1963 or 64 Speedmaster help

ortope

heller792

heller792

befobe

blubarb

heller792

padders

blubarb

ortope

padders

heller792

heller792

john_coburg

BLOW UP

heller792

BLOW UP

ortope

heller792

ortope

heller792

Similar threads

Unfortunately I need to replace/refinish the dial on my 105.003 64 Speedmaster… recommendations?

1970 Speedmaster Help

Omega Speedmaster help please

1963 Omega Seamaster Help

Omega SM300 165.024-64 Fake or Genuine?

Vintage speedmaster help