1964 movement in a 105.003-65?

Freedom7 · Sat. 9:54pm

Hi: My cousin has his father’s Speedmaster 105.003. We took off the caseback and it has 105.003-65 on it, but the movement is 2252XXXX. I looked that up as best I could and it appears that the movement was made in 1964. He tells me it was always owned by his father who bought it new. Could that be right: a 1964 movement in -65 case? Maybe I just misdated the serial number?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Jennison.

cuonglm · Sat. 10:02pm

It sounds normal to me, movements could be produced in batches per year, then be used in following year.

hansaboy · Sat. 10:53pm

Pictures....???
😉

padders · Sun. 5:09am

That number is perfectly normal for a -65 iteration Ed White made in early 1966. My own has serial 22827xxx and dates by extract from April ‘66.

EDIT: I misread the serial in the OP post, see my later correction.

watchyouwant · Sun. 6:25am

Answer to your question: Yes.

Freedom7 · Sun. 6:45am

Here some photos. Not sure what my dear cousin did to get them to look like this, but the watch isn’t missing a lug. I guess there’s no photo of the case back, but it is stamped 105.003-65 The hands may have been replaced late in its life he thinks. The crown is original with the flat foot logo. The watch was always serviced at a small shop in his town. From the looks of the screws, the watch guy was a gorilla.

Davidt · Sun. 7:03am

I’m going to go slightly against the grain here and say 22,52xxxx is slightly too early for a -65. As far as I remember 22,82xxxx is the earliest serial range for a -65.

There are 3 possibilities here for me;
1. You have an unusual but legitimate outlier.
2. The movement no is actually 22,8xxxxx (I can be certain on my phone)
3. The caseback was replaced.

Freedom7 · Sun. 7:08am

Here some photos. Not sure what my dear cousin did to get them to look like this, but the watch isn’t missing a lug. The hands may have been replaced late in its life he thinks. The watch was always serviced at a small shop in his town. From the looks of the screws, the watch guy was a gorilla.

Davidt
I’m going to go slightly against the grain here and say 22,52xxxx is slightly too early for a -65. As far as I remember 22,82xxxx is the earliest serial range for a -65.

There are 3 possibilities here for me;
1. You have an unusual but legitimate outlier.
2. The movement no is actually 22,8xxxxx (I can be certain on my phone)
3. The caseback was replaced.

That’s why I asked. Everywhere I looked, the 105.003 range started at 228xxxxx. Any signs that the rest of the watch might be earlier?

padders · Sun. 7:12am

Hmm. It seems I misread the serial on the original post. 2252 does sound too early for a -65 it is true. Are we sure it actually says that? I mean as David notes above 2282 might look v similar, omega serial stamps are notoriously hard to read. The lugs aren't -64 lugs so my money is not on a caseback swap, but a serial mis read. Or perhaps yes a movement swap.

Davidt · Sun. 7:20am

padders
Hmm. It seems I misread the serial on the original post. 2252 does sound too early for a -65 it is true. Are we sure it actually says that? I mean as David notes above 2282 might look v similar, omega serial stamps are notoriously hard to read. The lugs aren't -64 lugs so my money is not on a caseback swap, but a serial mis read. Or perhaps yes a movement swap.

Good point, it does seem to have the lug facets seen on -65 cases.
@Freedom7 is it definitely 22,52xxxx and not 22,82xxxx?

Freedom7 · Sun. 7:23am

I’m going to have to double check. I’ll circle back. Thanks guys

Freedom7 · Mon. 11:54am

Welp, opened the case again....

padders · Mon. 12:21pm

That’s an 8 mate. What’s the next digit? You don’t need to be so coy, even hiding the last one or 2 is enough if you must.
See my post above re early ‘66 serials. We should be able to date this watch pretty accurately with a couple more digits but as it stands it’s viable for a -65

Freedom7 · Mon. 12:36pm

I'm laughing. You're absolutely right I have no idea why I did that other than seeing others do it. 228250XX. I'd love to have a date on it if you could!

Foo2rama · Mon. 12:49pm

Run the serial through ilovemyspeedmaster.com

That is a better estimate

Freedom7 · Mon. 12:53pm

Foo2rama
Run the serial through ilovemyspeedmaster.com

That is a better estimate

Thanks! That's a great resource! December 1965 came up. Geez, that must be a pretty early -65.

padders · Mon. 12:58pm

Indeed! Assuming you are reading the other digits correctly 😉

Freedom7 · Mon. 1:36pm

Mea culpa. Feeling relieved and embarrassed at the same time is a strange experience.

Thanks for all the help!

Foo2rama · Mon. 5:53pm

F Freedom7
Mea culpa. Feeling relieved and embarrassed at the same time is a strange experience.

Thanks for all the help!

You have done much better than most young padawan.

At least you have not ended up like some of us in a similar situation and recorded a few hundred serial numbers and extracts and correlated to dial sub type….

Not that I did that at some point….. ….. …..

Oh if you ever get a -74 or -76 with an extract hit me up 😉

1964 movement in a 105.003-65?

Freedom7

cuonglm

hansaboy

padders

watchyouwant

Freedom7

Davidt

Freedom7

padders

Davidt

Freedom7

Freedom7

padders

Freedom7

Foo2rama

Freedom7

padders

Freedom7

Foo2rama

Similar threads

Some advice on a 105.003-65 Ed White Pre-moon

Can you put a dial of Speedmaster 105.003 in a 105.012 ?

Considering a 105.003-65... any issues?

Building a 105.012-65

Just bought a 105.003 and need some help...

Looking for a KL 6610, KL 6068 or KL 6292 case to put my very early 560 adjusted movement in.