After 55 year I've finally decided to figure out what I have 145022-68ST

[Architect]

pdxleaf

According to ilovemyspeedmaster.com, your watch was born around March, 1969.

Thank you!! Great to know...

 

[Architect]

Annapolis

None of my business, but I’d make a strong case against selling. What an heirloom. And if you are going to sell, unless it’s a financial urgency, what’s the rush? We are almost definitely going back to the Moon in a few years—the whole country is going to be “Moon crazy” when that happens—and I imagine a c.1969 Speedmaster (the original “Moonwatch”) is only going to climb in value relative to all that.

Annapolis- Thank You-Even though the watch was made in 1968 and bracelet 1/69 you're saying I have the original Moonwatch? I've been getting great imput from this forum and I will be passing it on to my SWA First Officer son after its serviced. SWA just approved their pilot contract so instead of gifting it I may just ask my son to pay me for the watch!!! Lol

 

[RevZMan123]

Amazing find and such a great story!

 

[Annapolis]

Architect

Annapolis- Thank You-Even though the watch was made in 1968 and bracelet 1/69 you're saying I have the original Moonwatch? I've been getting great imput from this forum and I will be passing it on to my SWA First Officer son after its serviced. SWA just approved their pilot contract so instead of gifting it I may just ask my son to pay me for the watch!!! Lol

Everyone defines these things as they like, but, for the little it's worth, if I were looking to purchase a watch to commemorate Apollo 11, it would be a c.1969 Speedy. To me, that feels more authentically "of that moment" than one of the (many) other "Moonwatch" editions that came subsequently. I feel pretty confident that I'm not alone in saying this, though I know better than to expect unanimous consent on anything here at Omega Forums.

 

[paddymoran]

Thanks for sharing with the forum - it’s been a pleasure to read a very uplifting thread and view your pictures. The “1 69” on your 1039 bracelet is for Q1 1969. Lovely to pass down to your son as you intend to do.

 

[pdxleaf]

Architect

Annapolis- Thank You-Even though the watch was made in 1968 and bracelet 1/69 you're saying I have the original Moonwatch? I've been getting great imput from this forum and I will be passing it on to my SWA First Officer son after its serviced. SWA just approved their pilot contract so instead of gifting it I may just ask my son to pay me for the watch!!! Lol

You have one of the best references. People call this a transitional reference because it had the same dial as the earlier moon watch (one worn on the moon) but with a new, updated movement. It was also made for a short time, making it even more collectible. I won't go into all the details but there is a lot of information on the internet that you will find fun reading.

There are several pilots on this forum, including Delta and American Airlines who also have Speedmasters. Your son should absolutely love it and it is great that he can add to its heritage.

 

[spacemission]

Architect

NEVER serviced.

 

[ErichPryde]

Annapolis

Everyone defines these things as they like, but, for the little it's worth, if I were looking to purchase a watch to commemorate Apollo 11, it would be a c.1969 Speedy. To me, that feels more authentically "of that moment" than one of the (many) other "Moonwatch" editions that came subsequently. I feel pretty confident that I'm not alone in saying this, though I know better than to expect unanimous consent on anything here at Omega Forums.

I was recently looking at 1968 861 transitionals. I just recently picked up my first speedmaster (a much more recent 1863), and I'm fairly certain if I added another it would be something like a 68 (either 145.012 or .022) or a 69. I agree that (and I'm adding 68 in there) a speedmaster from this era really captures the essence of the space race. I think (I'm not super familiar with vintage speedies- yet) there was also some early limited Japanese apollo commemorative? I recall that one looking quite nice...

 

[pdxleaf]

ErichPryde

I was recently looking at 1968 861 transitionals. I just recently picked up my first speedmaster (a much more recent 1863), and I'm fairly certain if I added another it would be something like a 68 (either 145.012 or .022) or a 69. I agree that (and I'm adding 68 in there) a speedmaster from this era really captures the essence of the space race. I think (I'm not super familiar with vintage speedies- yet) there was also some early limited Japanese apollo commemorative? I recall that one looking quite nice...

@Archer wrote a mind-boggling thread on the difference between the 321 caliber versus the 861 caliber that followed it. (I had to reread it several times to comprehend it. It was worth the effort.) Here it is for anyone who hasn't read it and might be interested:
https://omegaforums.net/threads/321-v-861-and-the-much-talked-about-cost-savings.149285/

Not to go into all the details, the 861 was similar enough that few people would think it isn't a moon watch. Correct me if I'm wrong, the 1861 caliber that came after the 861 was basically the same except the 1861 had more rhodium coating, making it more corrosive resistant. So the 1861 is closer to the 861 than the 861 is to the 321. All three are pretty much safe to consider moon watches, if you're comparing movements as opposed to perhaps dial features or what was used on Apollo.

There's only one solution, which is to get one of each!

 

[Watch my Whisky]

I would pay 7k for this one.

 

[padders]

Architect

Annapolis- Thank You-Even though the watch was made in 1968 and bracelet 1/69 you're saying I have the original Moonwatch? I've been getting great imput from this forum and I will be passing it on to my SWA First Officer son after it’s serviced. SWA just approved their pilot contract so instead of gifting it I may just ask my son to pay me for the watch!!! Lol

As noted above, both your head and bracelet were actually made in 1969, production often lagged the iteration code in the back. There is some fudging going on here but I think a more honest answer to your question is “mostly”. You have the model that would have been for sale in jewellery stores the day the first man walked on the moon, it has the so called Pre-Moon caseback and has the exact look of the previous model which actually orbited on Apollo 11 (later models are noticeably different) though a slightly different movement. The watches worn on the surface were all slightly earlier than yours.

Edited: Feb 7, 2024

 

[Spacefruit]

Watch my Whisky

I would pay 7k for this one.

and here is the only reliable valuation so far…

(what someone would ACTUALLY pay…)

 

[blubarb]

I would pay between USD6 - 7 for this transitional as is. Most likely at the top end given the provenance.

 

[Mark Rick]

Decisions Decisions Decisions the hardest one for you if you decide to keep it will be which son.

 

[Ron_W]

Beautiful watch and some really great advice here already.

 

[kaplan]

Beautiful watch and thanks, I feel better about the watches I bought and never opened for 3 years, compared to 55 it's nothing

 

[Butch49]

pdxleaf

You have one of the best references. People call this a transitional reference because it had the same dial as the earlier moon watch (one worn on the moon) but with a new, updated movement. It was also made for a short time, making it even more collectible. I won't go into all the details but there is a lot of information on the internet that you will find fun reading.

There are several pilots on this forum, including Delta and American Airlines who also have Speedmasters. Your son should absolutely love it and it is great that he can add to its heritage.

You seem very knowledgeable - I have a 145022-68 ST, with a c. 321 and a serial number of 25

Annapolis

Everyone defines these things as they like, but, for the little it's worth, if I were looking to purchase a watch to commemorate Apollo 11, it would be a c.1969 Speedy. To me, that feels more authentically "of that moment" than one of the (many) other "Moonwatch" editions that came subsequently. I feel pretty confident that I'm not alone in saying this, though I know better than to expect unanimous consent on anything here at Omega Forums.

 

[Butch49]

Butch49

You seem very knowledgeable - I have a 145022-68 ST, with a c. 321 and a serial number of 25

You seem very knowledgeable - I have a 145022-68 ST, with a c. 321 and a serial number of 25006890. By serial number that makes the watch a 67, however it has the metal omega logo on the dial and 1069 stamped in the bracelet. It is all original and stayed in my fathers nightstand draw for all of my life. He bought it new somewhere between 68/69. It seems to be a contradiction as to what parts it should have but I know it is completely original. Your thoughts?

 

[Butch49]

Photos of actual watch

 

[Spacefruit]

The watch above is most likely a 145.012 with a swapped back. The bracelet is unlikely to be the one fitted to it originally.

Memories, especially of valued family possessions, are notoriously unreliable.

(No offence!)