bezel-check on this 145.022-78 ST

Posts
231
Likes
339
Hi all,

I would like to get your opinion on this bezel. Sorry for the poor foto, but I think you see what is needed to judge this. Aside from the wrong bracelet and other weaknesses, I have the feeling it could be a bogus replacement....

Thx, caselock

 
Posts
939
Likes
3,881
Other than the bezel being a bit worn, I don't really see any big issues with it for a -78 Speedmaster. I've seen a few of them with these, for lack of a better term, thicker font B2 Bezel iterations so it would not worry me. But I'm only speaking for my personal opinion when studying a watch for my own wearing. If you want a collector grade example, this is not where I'd start.

What could be a concern though, is the dial. That dial, if it is in fact not a stepped dial (better photos would be needed), IIRC it looks to be what should be on -74 or very early -76 examples. If the case back is a -78, I may be suspect of it, or it could be as simple as the case back is a service replacement or even the dial was replaced at some point. Hard to tell without more photos and with many of these old Speedmasters, knowing more about watch's story can help understand what may or may not be bogus replacement components.
 
Posts
659
Likes
1,349
Wrong bracelet but this is worth much more than the period correct one. 馃榾
resell this to buy a 1170 and you still have some money left.
 
Posts
13,202
Likes
22,961
Do you know the serial number and have you seen the caseback or is the seller just telling you it鈥檚 a -78?
The dial looks like it might have a step, and that combined with the flat link bracelet makes me think it could be a -71.
Have you got additional pictures?
 
Posts
5,317
Likes
24,330
I would be curious to see what the bracelet actually is...I bet it's not actually a valuable 1039, but it would be nice if it is. Looks too shiny and wrong shape links, from what I can see, which admittedly isn't much.

The bezel, while being correct, is not a good example.

The dial has problems with the markers. I don't know if they have been adjusted, or something has affected all the markers.
 
Posts
231
Likes
339
Other than the bezel being a bit worn, I don't really see any big issues with it for a -78 Speedmaster. I've seen a few of them with these, for lack of a better term, thicker font B2 Bezel iterations so it would not worry me. But I'm only speaking for my personal opinion when studying a watch for my own wearing. If you want a collector grade example, this is not where I'd start.

What could be a concern though, is the dial. That dial, if it is in fact not a stepped dial (better photos would be needed), IIRC it looks to be what should be on -74 or very early -76 examples. If the case back is a -78, I may be suspect of it, or it could be as simple as the case back is a service replacement or even the dial was replaced at some point. Hard to tell without more photos and with many of these old Speedmasters, knowing more about watch's story can help understand what may or may not be bogus replacement components.
Thank you for the detailed description. I am in the process of learning and the Speedmaster-world is indeed full of hidden secrets....
I was aware that this watch is a mix of parts, but my foremost concern was the bezel. Now, my mind is eased as it seems to be at least an Omega part. I has the feeling that the font is too thick, the serif of the seven too obscure.
The dial has a number of issues.... I see your point that the short S should belong to an earlier reference....
 
Posts
231
Likes
339
Wrong bracelet but this is worth much more than the period correct one. 馃榾
resell this to buy a 1170 and you still have some money left.
It is a 1039/516 indeed. Sorry for the phone-pics but my regular camera failed...

 
Posts
231
Likes
339
Just recognized: back is signed 76 .... sorry for this confusion.
 
Posts
231
Likes
339
I would be curious to see what the bracelet actually is...I bet it's not actually a valuable 1039, but it would be nice if it is. Looks too shiny and wrong shape links, from what I can see, which admittedly isn't much.

The bezel, while being correct, is not a good example.

The dial has problems with the markers. I don't know if they have been adjusted, or something has affected all the markers.
The dial has somewhat displaced lume material all around the markers. Very faint but well visible under daylight. Wunder if this happend when someone during service tries to add some compound in an attempt of fixation of the lume?!
 
Posts
231
Likes
339
No step on the dial visible under magnifying glasses...
 
Posts
13,202
Likes
22,961
So the serial matches the dial (both correct for -74 or early -76) but the caseback is later and the bracelet is too early.
 
Posts
1,201
Likes
3,600
So the serial matches the dial (both correct for -74 or early -76) but the caseback is later and the bracelet is too early.
It says -76
 
Posts
13,202
Likes
22,961
It says -76
Ha so it does. I was going by the OPs title and didn鈥檛 closely check the caseback.
Just the bracelet which seems to be non-contemporary to the rest
 
Posts
18,202
Likes
27,531
That鈥檚 a -78? The dial says -76 or earlier.

How was the year determined?
 
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,994
Haven鈥檛 seen anyone ask price yet- that could make the issues far more livable, or a non-starter.