Advice on this Ed White case

Posts

974

Likes

1,514

timoss

·May 10, 2020

Hi, folks-- Curious how the collective wisdom would evaluate (and value) this case, from a 105.003-63 apparently. I am trying to educate myself and via pics, it is always difficult. I would say it looks like the bevels have been polished down and especially the ends of the lugs misshapen as a result? A lot of Ed Whites out there seem to look like this, even the examples in MWO. And then there there the un-beveled -64 cases....

 

Posts

974

Likes

1,514

timoss

·May 10, 2020

No opinions?

 

Posts

3,554

Likes

7,591

mac_omega

·May 10, 2020

IMO the -63 case should be without bevels and look like the -64

 

Posts

1,762

Likes

7,219

JimJupiter

·May 10, 2020

IMO the -63 case should be beveled, and just the 64 is bevel -less.

 

Posts

3,554

Likes

7,591

mac_omega

·May 10, 2020

JimJupiter

IMO the -63 case should be beveled, and just the 64 is bevel -less.

They are both from the same maker HF and made for a short time only... I have seen -63 without bevels.

 

Posts

580

Likes

1,874

incabloc

·May 10, 2020

Have seen this on ebay. Interestingly it has screwed in pushers. My -63 has them as well.

 

Posts

10,440

Likes

16,324

padders

·May 10, 2020·Oooo subtitles!

We have discussed EW case variation at length on here previously, the -65 and -64 are now pretty widely known and agreed upon, there is still some debate on the -63 but on balance I am swayed to think that they were originally more like the -64 than distinctly bevelled -65. The point above about who made them is valid, the -63 and 64 share a maker, the -65 is by someone else. All these though have nothing like the excessive bevel seen on the FOIS. The OP case has clearly had some wear and maybe a polish or 2 but does seem to have the -64 type profile of no distinct bevel but a compound curved side. It may well be correct but a bit tired.

Edited: May 10, 2020

 

Posts

974

Likes

1,514

timoss

·May 10, 2020

Yes I have read several of the OF threads on this, but as stated there isn't much (yet) on pre- 64 cases with regard to the bevel/non-bevel question. It's also odd that MWO does not discuss this non-bevel case phenomenon, which even in their own pictures in the book seem evident in -64 (and some earlier) straight lug cases.

 

Posts

3,554

Likes

7,591

mac_omega

·May 11, 2020

timoss

It's also odd that MWO does not discuss this non-bevel case phenomenon, which even in their own pictures in the book seem evident in -64 (and some earlier) straight lug cases.

And MWO book is already in its 3rd edition and nobody cared to amend this particular content...

There is the question: do the authors not know or don´t they care to update?

edited the error...

Edited: May 11, 2020

 

Posts

5,071

Likes

15,650

eugeneandresson

·May 11, 2020

To me that looks like a -64...(edit : the one with the bracelet on...the case without a bracelet looks like a late 2998/105002 case...so maybe a 63???)

Edited: May 11, 2020

 

K

Posts

1,443

Likes

3,810

killer67

·May 11, 2020

mac_omega

And MWO book is already in its 4th edition and nobody cared to amend this particular content...

There is the question: do the authors not know or don´t they care to update?

Is the 4th edition out? I thought it was in the 3rd edition

 

Posts

974

Likes

1,514

timoss

·May 11, 2020

MWO is indeed on its 3rd edition.

 

K

Posts

1,443

Likes

3,810

killer67

·May 11, 2020

timoss

MWO is indeed on its 3rd edition.

ok good not trying to spend another $350

 

Posts

3,554

Likes

7,591

mac_omega

·May 11, 2020

timoss

MWO is indeed on its 3rd edition.

Sorry for the error - I have just edited my comment...

 

Posts

10,440

Likes

16,324

padders

·May 12, 2020·Oooo subtitles!

Is anyone frantically searching for errors or omissions in the 30mm bible right now, or is that perfect in every way? 😉

 

Posts

875

Likes

2,607

BatDad

·May 12, 2020

padders

Is anyone frantically searching for errors or omissions in the 30mm bible right now, or is that perfect in every way? 😉

I wouldn’t say frantically but I’d like to see more copy / details on the 1957 50th anniversary Speedy limited enamel dial. 311.33.42.50.01.001. 😀

 

Posts

10,440

Likes

16,324

padders

·May 12, 2020·Oooo subtitles!

BatDad

I wouldn’t say frantically but I’d like to see more copy / details on the 1957 50th anniversary Speedy limited enamel dial. 311.33.42.50.01.001. 😀

I was talking about another book, also highly regarded which covers the 30mm movement Omegas the author of which commented earlier 😉. I am afraid the reason why you won’t see much on the enamel dial 50th Anni Speedy in MWO is that it has a non Lemania movement, a prerequisite for inclusion. That model lovely though it is has a curious one off version of the 3x33 F Piguet derived auto with no rotor making it manual wind.

I too have a 3313 Speedy and love it to bits but I understand why the MWO haven’t included the Broad Arrow watches, they have to stop somewhere! Is the so called grail in there? I can’t actually remember? If so then there is a case for Broad Arrow inclusion I guess.

Edited: May 12, 2020

 

Posts

875

Likes

2,607

BatDad

·May 12, 2020

Ahhhhh.... I hadn't caught the connection. Its very cool we have such a mix of folks here!

Today I learnt something! I hadn't realized the 3201 had that heritage. It was my first speedy, so I have a special affection for it. I bought it purely on the enamel dial which is wonderful.

Now that you've clarified the movement details, it makes sense that MWO didn't include more details - it's mentioned but only as an addendum to the Gold Seahorse 50th Anni Speedy. (1861)

Had a qiuck look see on MWO - couldnt see the grail. A few moonphases based on 1866. I might have missed it, but it didn't leap out.