On the left is an original 145.012, on the right a Watchco built "NOS" 145.0012.

More on this here

 

Dial still wrong?

 

Dial on the left is an original correct AML long indices stepped dial.

On the right is a service dial.

 

any idea where the donor movement came from?

 

I have a 2998-61 whose only fault is that it has a, slightly later, 105.003 dial (A7 dial with Ts) rather than the correct A5 dial with has no Ts. I presume that this occurred during a Omega service in the 1960's as Omega made efforts to remove T less dials.

While this is certainly a fault, I would maintain that the incorrectness ( and associated loss of value) is far less than a modern flat service dial. In comparing the two dials in MWO, it appears that the the correct 2998 dial (A5) difers very little from the later 105.003 (A7) dial. Radium vs Trillium and the Swiss Made inscription appear to be the only differences. Furthermore, I've read that due to the change in law, radium was phased out in the later 2998 dials. Perhaps the only difference is the inscription.

That being said, I would like to source a proper 2998 dial (A5) for this watch. They are very hard to find and usually don't come cheap. Luckily, a fabulous specimen has appeared on EBay, and is priced very nicely, so far. I'm give it serious consideration.



http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&alt=web&id=252033902371&globalID=EBAY-USPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

 

If you get a correct 2998 dial, then I would give your 105.003 dial serious consideration !!

I have a cool 105.003 but you can see the problem :

 

Well, the 105.003 dial is already spoken for. In order to put some fire in my belly to find a correct 2998 dial, I purchased a 105.003 with a service dial. It is now waiting for it's hand me down dial from the 2998-61.

I believe you are fortunate in the fact that a 105.003 dial is easier to source that the older 2998 dial

Good luck!

 

Maybe easier to source but not easy !... Maybe I don't seek in the good direction...

Good luck as well !

 

Actually, Watchco 145.0012s cannot be considered NOS because the movements have been generally sourced from other watches.
A real NOS can only be made in the following way:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fotoplot/rwbspeedmaster/A new Speedmaster 321.html
However, having pursued the same approach some eight years ago, I must add that nowadays it would be extremely expensive - if not unfeasible at all - to do it again.

 

Hence the "NOS" not NOS.

I agree that this is not NOS; it is what Watchco marketed them as, if not explicitly then implied. (I cannot remember).

I placed the NOS in parentheses to illustrate my feelings on the subject.

 

I agree entirely. An entirely NOS built from parts might have a meaning. An old movement in a new case much, much less, if any at all.

 

That 2998 Spacefruit, oh, what a shame.