Community Stories

Check on 105.012-65

S
Posts
20
Likes
16
Thanks so much again @pdxleaf @Aludic @ibis888

Got one more question:
I saw on speedmaster101 that the serial range for the 105.012-65 is 2282 5xxx - 2452 7xxx.
Now this one has the movement no. 24.532xxx, so just outside of that.

Is it still the -65 one? Any way I can say that for sure? Especially as the extract only confirms the 105.012.
I know it shows -65 on the casback, but not sure if that confirms it for the whole watch (esp. movement).

Sorry if it's a stupid question, just trying to tick all the boxes this time 😁
Edited:
 
pdxleaf
Posts
6,193
Likes
21,198
S SK1989
Thanks so much again @pdxleaf @Aludic @ibis888

Got one more question:
I saw on speedmaster101 that the serial range for the 105.012-65 is 2282 5xxx - 2452 7xxx.
Now this one has the movement no. 24.532xxx, so just outside of that.

Is it still the -65 one? Any way I can say that for sure? Especially as the extract only confirms the 105.012.
I know it shows -65 on the casback, but not sure if that confirms it for the whole watch (esp. movement).

Sorry if it's a stupid question, just trying to tick all the boxes this time 😁


Use this: ilovemyspeedmaster.com

https://www.ilovemyspeedmaster.com/productiondateprediction/
 
S
Posts
20
Likes
16
@pdxleaf
thanks for sending that site - this is what I'm getting. Think that looks good if I read it correctly!?
 
IMG_0124.jpeg
faid2black
Posts
76
Likes
129
I remember looking at that Belmont -65 example. I was disappointed by the low resolution of the posted photos and thought the case was a bit too polished for my liking to follow up. That said, I thought the package overall was quite attractive for the price. As others have said, would be important to see high quality photos of the dial!
 
pdxleaf
Posts
6,193
Likes
21,198
S SK1989
@pdxleaf
thanks for sending that site - this is what I'm getting. Think that looks good if I read it correctly!?

Respectfully, that's for you to decide.
 
Aludic
Posts
1,457
Likes
6,424
For what it's worth (as Extracts don't state sub-references), I have seen two 105.012-65's with a serial in the 24.531xxx range. Hence, both outside of the stated ranges in Moonwatch Only, but possibly correct. Given the late delivery date of this particular piece ('67), I'd say it's very well possible that it is indeed the correct case back.

The comparative rarity of the 105.012-65 versus the 105.012-66s (which it would be otherwise), provides further justification for it to be a correct 105.012-65.
 
padders
Posts
10,446
Likes
16,336
Apologies for the tangent down a rabbit hole but here goes...

At first glance, Jan 1967 seems late for a 105.012-65 model but I suspect there’s may have been some overlap in 1967 with the -65, -66 and 145.012-67 models. Note like above, when you use the ILMS birthdate query option for various 1966, 1967 or 1968 months it doesn’t give a clear return for the -66 model (indeed I think it is only mentioned on one single month) suggesting either not enough data or a fuzzy transition between models. Another thing to consider is that a good proportion of the -66s are CB cased with the extra lug facets, this aren't seen here adding further weight to the Jan '67 date being OK for a -65 (unless it was a HF -66 with a swapped back that is, but I think that less likely).
Edited:
 
140dave
Posts
1,976
Likes
9,456
Aludic Aludic
The comparative rarity of the 105.012-65 versus the 105.012-66s (which it would be otherwise), provides further justification for it to be a correct 105.012-65.
Is the -65 actually notably less common than a -66? I don't think I've ever looked at production numbers by year on the 105.012 other than the -63. I know the -63 is rare but really haven't looked between a -65 and a -66. Are there production numbers available by year?
 
masteroftime
Posts
759
Likes
804
Aludic Aludic
For what it's worth (as Extracts don't state sub-references), I have seen two 105.012-65's with a serial in the 24.531xxx range. Hence, both outside of the stated ranges in Moonwatch Only, but possibly correct. Given the late delivery date of this particular piece ('67), I'd say it's very well possible that it is indeed the correct case back.

The comparative rarity of the 105.012-65 versus the 105.012-66s (which it would be otherwise), provides further justification for it to be a correct 105.012-65.

I went down a rabbit hole a few months back trying to figure out if a 105.012-65 I bought with a 24,537,xxx serial and spaced T dial was correct. At first I found a lot of threads here that made me think it was wrong. However, after reviewing this in depth review on/by chronoholic (who I believe is a member here), I concluded it was likely correct. Here is a relevant excerpt:

“As we’ve all learned, the most common dial variant observed on the 105.012-65 is the ‘B2. Close T’ Speedmaster Professional dial, while examples of the 105.012-65 reference produced at the very end of the production run in early 1967 (24.533.### - 24.537.### serial range) can exhibit the ‘B3. Spaced T’ dial.”

So it seems like -65 production ran well into 1967. He has a nice full set listed in his store as well with a 24.53x serial with an extract listing March of 67:

DA3118AC-8E64-455B-A434-2EA3534A1736.jpeg


Here is mine, which has similar lume:

7F59C618-EE35-4EBE-805E-3A3BE1155ABD.jpeg
 
ibis888
Posts
670
Likes
732
masteroftime masteroftime
I went down a rabbit hole a few months back trying to figure out if a 105.012-65 I bought with a 24,537,xxx serial and spaced T dial was correct. At first I found a lot of threads here that made me think it was wrong. However, after reviewing this in depth review on/by chronoholic (who I believe is a member here), I concluded it was likely correct. Here is a relevant excerpt:

“As we’ve all learned, the most common dial variant observed on the 105.012-65 is the ‘B2. Close T’ Speedmaster Professional dial, while examples of the 105.012-65 reference produced at the very end of the production run in early 1967 (24.533.### - 24.537.### serial range) can exhibit the ‘B3. Spaced T’ dial.”

So it seems like -65 production ran well into 1967. He has a nice full set listed in his store as well with a 24.53x serial with an extract listing March of 67:

DA3118AC-8E64-455B-A434-2EA3534A1736.jpeg


Here is mine, which has similar lume:

7F59C618-EE35-4EBE-805E-3A3BE1155ABD.jpeg

Spectacular watch!
 
padders
Posts
10,446
Likes
16,336
140dave 140dave
Is the -65 actually notably less common than a -66? I don't think I've ever looked at production numbers by year on the 105.012 other than the -63. I know the -63 is rare but really haven't looked between a -65 and a -66. Are there production numbers available by year?
My ramblings above regarding the apparent rarity of -66 extracts also suggest the -65 may be more common. @eugeneandresson has published a breakdown of number of ILMS extracts by model by year before but I can’t find it at present. Anyone have it stored or got a link?
Edited:
 
Aludic
Posts
1,457
Likes
6,424
140dave 140dave
Is the -65 actually notably less common than a -66? I don't think I've ever looked at production numbers by year on the 105.012 other than the -63. I know the -63 is rare but really haven't looked between a -65 and a -66. Are there production numbers available by year?

To be very honest, I don't have a hard fact to back that up. All I have is >500 Speedmaster EoA's which I have captured and classified, including the subreference in case I could find it. In that set, there are a few more 105.012-66's then 105.012-65's, similarly, I have seen more 105.012-66's offered for sale recently. So, all I have is an observation which is possibly biased as I'm still looking for a 105.012-65 next to my 105.012-66s. 😁

Unfortunately, I am afraid we won't get much more than this (unless Omega chooses to disclose more) as EoA's don't bear the subreference number so only structured observations (of EoA's and corresponding casebacks that are - hopefully - matching) to get this insight.
 
S
Posts
20
Likes
16
Hey everyone,
I decided to go ahead with the piece from Belmont and it just got delivered (to my parents house, I’ll pick it up on Friday and can send more photos). Have two pics attached that they sent. Initially thought there might be a scratch on the dial above the 30, but there’s just been a hair haha - as to be seen in the more zoomed photo.

Thanks to everyone for all the great help - wouldn’t have changed my original one without the feedback on here, but obviously very happy that I did! @pdxleaf @ibis888 @Aludic @Davidt @SOG53
 
IMG_3756.jpeg IMG_3757.jpeg
5 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

ZWD

105.012-65 B2 Mk2 dial & 105.012-XX

ZWD Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
ZWD
ZWD
Posts
0
Views
110
J

Build date info for 105.012-65

James UK Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
padders
padders
Posts
11
Views
203
mooner

Speedy 105.012-65 of (68?)

mooner Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
mooner
mooner
Posts
5
Views
206
ZWD

105.012-65 Dial & Question

ZWD Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
ZWD
ZWD
Posts
8
Views
482
englandmj7

105.012-65 Correct Dial - Wide T?

englandmj7 Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
skand
skand
Posts
12
Views
395
dscoogs

Thoughts on this Speedmaster 105.012-65 please

dscoogs Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
Porteroso
Porteroso
Posts
38
Views
1K