Another 145.012 as found

Caselock · Mar 6, 2024

Hi all,

this is another battered 145.012 in the condition it came to me. With patina, scratches, wrong crown, sweep second whitened, 1039 strap, debris, untouched. Was very intrigued so I decided to go for it:

Movement looks ok, number range too

Steeped dial with intact lume, but a bit discoloured 5 and 6

Case with sharp edges and signs of wear, wonder if you consider this unpolished?

Hands apart from Sweep second with old lume

Crown definitely replacemnt and wrong size.

Bezel with scratches all around

Crystal scratched with logo

Bracelet 1039/516 with even patina and stretch.

No EoA so would guess its 1968 production'?

Would like to get your expert-input.

Thanks, caselock

Some frontal pics:

Ta

Caselock · Mar 6, 2024

This is the back ....

Caselock · Mar 6, 2024

The bracelet...

ibis888 · Mar 6, 2024

Looks like a replacement crown. That could clean up nicely after a good cleaning/servicing (at which they do *not* polish the case or replace any original external parts).

Caselock · Mar 6, 2024

And the interior.... put in another crown I had ...

Davidt · Mar 6, 2024

It could be a perfect daily wearer/beater. The case has its fair share of wear as does the bezel and the lume isn’t particularly attractive, but it looks original. If the price was right it’s a decent, honest pick up

SOG53 · Mar 6, 2024

Well shown good photos. Look forward to seeing the post cleanup! Enjoy

NotJackson · Mar 6, 2024

I’d call it “used but not shabby,” and the movement looks good. Looking forward to the “after” pictures!

Caselock · Mar 7, 2024

Will do a technical service and leave the exterior as is but cleaned. I wonder if the bracelets usually have a date prior to the production of the watch or later ( if at all original to the release ). I think I read somewhere in the MO Book that it should be prior to the production of the watch? Is there someone who could confirm this?

Spacefruit · Mar 7, 2024

I am curious to see if what looks like corrosion in the crevices is just dirt or is actually corrosion.

Fingers crossed.

Archer · Mar 7, 2024

Spacefruit
I am curious to see if what looks like corrosion in the crevices is just dirt or is actually corrosion.

Fingers crossed.

90% sure there's some pitting going on there...

Caselock · Mar 8, 2024

Spacefruit
I am curious to see if what looks like corrosion in the crevices is just dirt or is actually corrosion.

Fingers crossed.

I will report and post new pics asap...

Dash1 · Mar 8, 2024

Caselock
I think I read somewhere in the MO Book that it should be prior to the production of the watch? Is there someone who could confirm this?

No, the buckle date is more usually after production date. I’d say yours is about right for the watch.

ortope · Mar 9, 2024

NotJackson
I’d call it “used but not shabby,” and the movement looks good. Looking forward to the “after” pictures!

No, it is the exact opposite. The band's date is always later than the date seen on the reference on the early Speedmaster IMHO.
Nice watch, Ash, but shouldn't be the clasp marked "x/68"?
Cheers

Dash1 · Mar 9, 2024

ortope
Nice watch, Ash, but shouldn't be the clasp marked "x/68"?

Could be, but a -67 would commonly be ‘produced’ (put together) in ‘68 so a bracelet date of ‘69 would be quite usual I think, especially if it was attached at point of sale.

Caselock · Mar 9, 2024

Hm, I wonder if all these watches left the factory with bracelets mounted as wished by the customer.

Dash1
Could be, but a -67 would commonly be ‘produced’ (put together) in ‘68 so a bracelet date of ‘69 would be quite usual I think, especially if it was attached at point of sale.

I wonder if these watches always left the factory with bracelets mounted. The boxes suggest so. Or were these boxes completed in the shops on customers demand?

Caselock · Mar 20, 2024

Update:

the watch got a mechanical overhaul, cleaning of the case, polishing of the crystal, fiting of the bracelet to my wrist size, central second relumed, crown replaced by another replacement... I tried to take pictures as close as possible to the ones before. So the dirfferences are subtle. Unfortunatley I forgot to ask the watchmaker to take a pic of the dial when dismantled:
the dial looks better than I expected, the lume seems to be intact:

Caselock · Mar 20, 2024

the crystal has the old logo, the polish could be better but the scratches are invisable when looking at it without magnification. 1960ies ? original?! Your opinion please...