Looking for a little help on the dial of a '67 Speedy Pro from a fantastic seller (see photos). I'm having trouble finding other examples from this time period where the tritium looks like this on the hour markers, especially at the 12 o'clock marker where the lume is slightly squiggly. A couple of the other hour markers have a similar uneven application. I realize that the watch is almost 50 years old and that the lume was applied by hand, so I don't need it to be perfect, just original. Also, double-checking the crown and pushers. Any opinions greatly appreciated! Thanks.
Crown and pushers look correct for a 145.012-67. The lume looks ok to me, looks a little shriveled up after 50 years, but maybe someone else will tell you something else. Dial looks fantastic, and the hands look authentic, but try to get a lume shot to help with the comparison.
Yeah, I don't have a lume shot, but I'm told it glows briefly then quickly fades. I used to have a '69 Speedmaster Pro and it also glowed faintly for a couple of seconds and then quickly faded. (Unlike Rolex tritium from the '60s and '70s that seems to completely die)
Everything on that dial looks so freshly painted. Bothers me that the zero's on the bezel are so thick on 400 and 500 vs say the 70. I would also guess a relume job. BUT, I am a rookie and may be way off base.
I have no doubts that the bezel and dial are original. I think the light from the right side is creating that effect on the bezel numbers. I've seen shots of the watch from straight-on and the numbers font is the same. The dial is super crisp, yes. I really just wonder if the tritium on the hour markers has aged like this, was originally applied a little roughly, or has been re-applied at some point.
I don't have a speedy that has lume that looks like that, but I know I've seen other photos showing a similar effect. I'm sure some of the more prolific Speedmaster collectors will be along to talk about the authenticity shortly.
My vote would be relume....I don't think omega would apply " a little rough". All of the markers are " shrunk" kind of evenly... I think it will still be a sharp looking piece... I would take the lume as factor of figuring out cost/ fair price
I'm no expert but I know a man who is and will check tomorrow but upon first observations I would speculate that the lume may have been replaced. I base this on the fact that those plus look extremely clean and whilst I accept lume does shift I have seldom seen it creeping our of the plot margins. There are far greater speedy experts on here than me so I will defer judgement to my wiser forum friends
I think the angle of the first photo (and the zoom) makes it look worse than it is. This other photo from straight-on might give a better sense of what's going on with the lume. It's interesting to note that the tritium patina on the big chrono seconds hand is the same as the tritium on the hour markers, indicating that they could both be original to the watch. If the hour markers were relumed, I wouldn't expect the patina to match, although I realize it's not definitive.
I've heard the term 'wobbly lume' in the past and I've seen some examples of it, but never quite so wobbly. any chance of some real close up macro shots? even holding a loupe up to a camera phone might shed some light.. but never mind the lume, that dial is awesome! any chance of a wider shot to show the bezel? Bezel looks like it's in great shape too!
I don't have the watch, so I don't have more photos. It's being offered for sale by an excellent dealer I've bought from in the past. That term "wobbly lume" was very helpful. There's some information online about it on this forum and elsewhere, and there seems to be a consensus that there was a batch of Speedy dials with this type of lume that is original. It still raises questions, though.
That lume geometry (wobbly) looks absolutely consistent with many, many 1967-period examples of Speedmaster dials I've seen, particularly 145.012's. Spot on. It is a bit more yellow in color, closer to the tritium seen on 105.012-66's, so I'd suspect this is from an early-production 145.012. Later 145.012 examples seem to have a more orange/brown tinge to them. Which would be reasonable if you would expect an older batch of tritium to be used up fully before mixing up the next can/batch of raw lume material. But regardless of lume color cases, the squiggliness of many 1967-1968 period dial lume is the same. I'd consider the lume on the dial to be correct and authentic, if this watch were presented to me.
Thanks, all, for the replies. One other thing about this watch ... it's a 145.012 that is listed with a 28,0XX,XXX serial number on the movement. Does that seem appropriate for 1967? According to the charts I see online about Speedys and serial numbers, most from '67 are in the 25,XXX,XXX range up to early 26,XXX,XXX. Is that right? Seems like there's conflicting info out there on the serial numbers and the acceptable range for specific years. Here's a photo, although it's tough to make out that second number on the movement. Maybe it's a "6" instead of "8."
Looks like a 26 to me too. I also bought a 67 Speedy last year being told it was 28xxxxxx but turned out to be 26xxxxxxxx when I opened her up.
Looks like a 26 to me as well. The one I bought last year was reported as 20, but was indeed 26 upon inspection..... Of course, very hard to tell from this pic and without zoom etc. But I think consensus is errors in reading these numbers happen all the time.....hard to read those small little numbers! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for the replies. I'm having the movement number looped today to confirm it. I can't find a reference to any Speedy 321 movements online that are in the 28,XXX,XXX range, so it's gotta be a "26" (hopefully).
And .... mystery solved. The movement is indeed a 2.6 mil, so all seems to check out for a '67 Speedy. Thanks for all the help. (I blurred out the end of the serial number, so I realize that little area looks odd in the photo, but it's fine.)