Hi,

Recently I saw a 145.022-69SW with a movementnumber (305x.xxxx) that fits at a 145.022-69 according tot Speedmaster101.

The watch has a DNN-bezel and a correct caseback, so from that point of view it is a 145.022-69SW. However, the SW movementnumbers begin at 31xx till 32xx.

Could this be a 145.022-69SW with just an older movement? Or is this definitely not original?

Matth

 

I usually look at both SM101 and this. If both are in agreement (which the mostly are) which disagrees with what I am seeing, then usually that means something is off. It all depends on the provenance of the watch: if this was certifiably a single owner piece bought new from Omega, then perhaps an outlier...

 

Yes, it can definitely be.

I recently bought a 145.022-69 SW with a 30.592.xxx serial, DNN and a Straight Writing caseback.



It comes from its first owner who bought it for Christmas 1970. The extract I just got confirms production in September 1970, delivered to Switzerland (where its first owner lives).

I had the same doubt and asked the heritage team for their opinion before I buy the watch, they confirmed everything to be okay and correct.

 

certifiable dibs

 

I've posted the second picture on purpose.

Look at this case and see how an untouched / not redone case from 1969 looks like Particularly the tips of the lugs

 

Thank you so much, this gives me hope!! Thanks also for the amazing pictures of your 69-er SW.

I think an extract of the archives is key with this watch. I will keep you updated when I have news about the SW I saw.

Matth

 

There will be no mention of the Straight Writing caseback on the Extract, though. They never mention this detail. It will be listed as a 145.022-69.

 

For sure? Will an SW always be mentioned as an 145.022-69 on an extract, and not as an 145.022-69SW?

If it’s true, an advantage for me than is that it’s easier to understand why some SW’s have an 145.022-69 movement, because Omega didn’t make this dividing. True?

 

Have you ever seen a caseback with 145.022-69SW engraved inside? No, because it doesn’t exist

I read this sentence several times but I still don’t understand what you’re trying to say.