If we start considering possibilities, there would be infinite combinations (just like it can happen even with a watch that meets all the standards of its era, where everything seems to fit, and it ends up being a parts bin special, but put together neatly and with the right knowledge).As my watchmaker already told me (who, as I mentioned before, worked at the official service center in my country), he saw many factory-original watches where the movement serial number didn't strictly fit within the ranges—like in this case, where the 220 error bezel is defined with numerical precision.Some people define a transitional 145.022 in a specific way, but it is also known that watches left the factory with long indices, and some with case backs dated '68 and others '69 (and they say this was standard practice at the headquarters, because they used whatever case backs, dials, etc., they had on hand, or perhaps it was headquarters policy for it to be that way).If collecting (and not the Omega factory) defines a transitional not just by the dial and serial number, but also by the case back date (which some say has to be '68), then the ones that left the factory at the exact same time with a '69 case back would cease to be transitionals.But by getting a '68 case back, it would suddenly become a '100% transitional'!
That being said, and strictly sticking to those rules, taking a vintage watch to an official service center can end up turning an original watch into a non-original one, as happened to me with my 105.012 five years ago.I took it in for a service, they returned it looking brand new, but with new pushers and a crown that weren't exactly identical to the original ones the watch had (the pushers are not the same). I didn't ask for them to be replaced either, and I had to resort to a lawyer to get my original parts back, which they only did 'as an exception' because they told us it was company policy.In other words, I took a 100% original watch to Omega, and what they returned to me no longer was (though it is again now because I put the original pushers and crown back on).With this 145.022, I honestly don't see much point in removing the dial to check the feet, because we already know it doesn't correspond to this model according to what is said on the forum.As my watchmaker says, that difference in the numbering range for the 220 error is not official Omega information, and he has records from back then when he worked at the official service center showing two brand-new watches with that bezel, with a movement serial number slightly higher than mine (though not by much), and those were watches that had their first service in the 70s in my country.My watchmaker might end up having to take the dial off when he checks it, in which case I'll ask him to take a picture of the dial feet, but as SOG said, it's a nice piece, I like the dial just the way it is, and it doesn't make much sense to go out hunting for a short-indices dial just to make it 'all original' and leave this dial sitting in a drawer gathering dust without much purpose.Unless by sheer coincidence I happen to buy a transitional whose dial was swapped for a short-indices one during some past service! Have a nice time, thanks.
from the state of the watch, it is entirely possible its an assembly from more than one watch. It will be interesting to see the dial feet
