Hi all,

I am new to this forum and also to watch collecting.
I wanted my first luxury timepiece to be of both historical and sentimental importance, and therefore started looking for a ref. 145.012 speedy from 1967 (preferably as this is the year in which both my parents were born).

I found the timepiece pictured in this post, which is sold by a retailer here in Switzerland where I live.
I've tried doing as much research I could on the originality of the watch and its parts and found nothing particularly unnerving (I found this article very helpful in doing the research).

The seller asks USD 10,500 but doesn't give much information about the watch other than it is completely original, in good condition and keeps time + the chronograph works as it should. I am inspecting the watch in person this weekend.

This is a large investment for me (as it probably would be for anyone) and I would therefore greatly appreciate any helpful advice, thoughts, suggestions or words of caution that you may have.

Thank you very much in advance!

Nick

 

Overall it doesn't look too bad... its just that bezel (to me) looks like its been messed around with...that does not look like honest wear/ghosting...and as such, to me that is a bit of a value hit, as it looks unattractively wrong. How to monetize that? Thats the game. I feel (without writing an essay why) that the price is probably a bit too high with that bezel, as adding a better bezel will not give a watch worth the full price...

Also : round these parts the words 'investement' and 'watch' in the same sentence/thread are usually cause of avoidance : I have chosen to assume by your use of investement here that 'you will spend a lot of money on a watch whose enjoyment shall be the return, but couldn't care if next week its 'worth' half the money put in'.

 

Funny that you mentioned that, it was the first thing that jumped out at me as well. The fading looks artificial. At the same time, the photos are obviously HEAVILY manipulated, so it's a bit hard to judge.

 

Thanks for your inputs, appreciate it! I'll hopefully get a chance to ask the seller about the bezel. Could also just be the light in his photos I guess.
And you are absolutely right, it's the historical significance that mainly attracts me to this reference (being a huge space race fan) - not the promise of a return.

 

It's more than just lighting, he has obviously applied filters to those photos. No matter, since you will see it in person.

 

You're probably right, I know that this guy has his whole instagram-deal going as well, so wouldn't surprise me

 

You can ask him about the fade, but he will most likely say 'its age'... its not

 

My bet is he doesn't have a clue as he's definitely not the first person to sell this particular watch

 

Please note that the central chronograph hand its not correct for a 321 caliber but for a late 861 such as a 145022/69

 

Really? I'm curious - how can you tell? I'm an absolute newbie, so keen to learn!
When I compare against this picture from the article I linked in my original post, I don't see a difference

 

The conventional wisdom is that 145.012 can have either type of sweep hand, and this is also indicated in MWO. I think there is at least one thread addressing this (maybe the same thread discussing 145.012-68 serials?), but I don't have a link to it handy. My memory is that some people seem to believe that there was a transition from one to the other throughout the production of the 145.012 reference, but I don't think that's absolutely clear.

 

145.012-67s are accepted with both chrono sweeping hands, so it's not a problem

 

It is actually correct for a late 145.012. But the low 25xxx serial is a bit too early for the square end hand, shouldn't be a dealbreaker though.

 

I forget the tells on a counterfeit DON bezel. Is this bezel possibly a fake that has been manipulated?.
It would seem improbable that someone would manipulate a good DON.

 

I had the same thought. Without going into too much detail (since it seems controversial to discuss these "tells"), I checked two of the most common errors, and they looked ok. I did not go over the entire bezel super carefully, but the OP might want to do that.

 

I agree

 

The crown appears to be a later service crown, and not a flat foot crown. Pushers look correct, but one or both may be replacements. The lower reset pusher looks a bit too shiny to my eye. However pushers get replaced and do not have a significant effect on values.

Case appears to have some softer bevel edges near the lugs, rather than the original crisp, sharp edges I’d like to see. And more so, they do not appear to match up to the side case brushing which looks to be more recent.

And at 25,002xxx serial I, too, would expect it to have the drop end Chrono hand - not the one currently fitted.

Also, when I see the colors of the selling photos filtered as they are for this example, I do not gain any confidence in what is being presented. Filtered images fundamentally alter the way one would see the watch first hand. The lume in some of the images appears to have a greenish cast, which is not particularly appealing to my tastes, and yet some of the images don’t show that color. Id rather see a more pleasing tan or toasted almond color on the dial plots. Your F2F visit to see it firsthand will tell you a lot.

Per the OP, the seller holds this watch out as being “all original” and yet I’m seeing several issues that contradict that statement. So for $10,500 USD it seems a bi dear to me. At a lower price, yes, this would be a nice watch to have.

FWIW, I’d counsel a bit of patience, and see what other examples might turn up in the next few months.

 

Thank you all for your valuable input! I'm writing all of these down!

 

@DennyDane - if you’ve not checked out spacefruit’s site Speedmaster101.com, I believe you should do a deep dive into that before your visit to the seller this weekend. You can learn a lot about this particular reference, as well as other more general “things to look for” when it comes to speedmasters.