Hi everyone,
I've had this speedy for a while, and from my limited understanding, maybe the pushers and crown are service replacements? But I am not super familiar with the nuances. Can a non flat foot crown possibly be correct on this reference? Considering to source a crown if this one is a replacement.
Also, I've always had it on a deployment and this modern Omega strap, which I love, but obviously it's not period correct, if I do go for vintage look, what's the "proper" buckle style and size?
thanks!

 

Hello mate. Lovely looking watch. The earlier 105.012 reference has the low, fat neck pusher. Your pushers may be service items, but look correct for the reference.

The crown? Again, the earlier 105.012 reference should have a 24 tooth crown. I may be wrong (If I am someone will put us straight )but I'm pretty sure that the later 32 tooth crown is correct for your watch???



Have a look on this page from Speedmaster101.

https://speedmaster101.com/145-012/

 

Hi!

Good looking Speedy! The crown is most probably not original, it should be an 24-tooth flat foot crown.

About the pushers; no issues. Whether those are original or not makes little difference in case of a 145.012 as those have remained unchanged since...

 

Very nice 145.012 you have here !
As already said, the crown is service replacement.
The pushers might be original to the watch.
The dial is really nice such as the DON bezel

 

Thanks for the feedback everyone. So is the current crown (NON flat foot 24 tooth) a definite replacement? Does anyone have MWO book, does that have an answer on crown issue?

 

A flatfoot 24-tooth would be correct.

 

thanks. Is my current crown correct for anything or have much value in terms of selling it to get a flat foot?

 

IMO, it's value is as an authentic functional watch part. Not particularly useful for a vintage collector. You would have to check eBay.

 

Referring to the first pic, I would check the hands as well. To me, the chrono second appears to be too short and the lume cutouts of hour and minute look thinner than what I'm used to.

Maybe it's just the picture.

 

Yes - usually see the chrono hand past the chapter ring

 

Obviously it does depend on camera angle, but the chrono length looks normal to me. I just did a quick search to double check on 145-012 that have sold here on OF and saw at least 5 examples in a row that appeared the same. (None of them were extending past the white hash marks/hour markers unless the shot was at an angle).

 

Could be the angle then. Not sure about period clasps but bracelet would be 1039 or 1116
Very nice pre moon

 

I'm curious what you guys are basing the chrono length question on, can you provide some examples? Here's a 145-012 that someone else just posted (this is a flat bottom not a point, but still you get the idea). All the other examples I found for sale here on OF were similar.

 

All I can say is that some knowledgeable people suggest that those shorter sweep hands are service hands. Other knowledgeable people don't make a big deal about it.

 

interesting, I wasn't aware of this. Like I mentioned, was looking though sold examples from here on OF, and saw about 5 examples in a row from spacefruit (he tended to provide the best straight on photos) which all looked similar, so I stopped looking at that point.

 

Here is one:

https://www.fratellowatches.com/spe...dmaster-professional-145-012-67-buyers-guide/




If you compare the hands to the ones on your watch, you'll see they're slightly different.

 

It's tough to evaluate the chrono length from any type of angle. This is the same watch from angle and then straight on. (Pic is from an old private sales listing, I hope they don't mind me sharing in this thread).

 

Anyhow I saw a bunch that seemed similar, all in this range, which was just a touch short of the outer scale. This is another from our private sales forum.

 

do you mean differences with the hour and minute hands, not just the length of chrono sweep ? I have seen a bit of a range with how thick the lume cutouts are, the last example I posted above appears thinner than the example you posted. I'm not sure if that's just lighting/camera/photo differences, or if there is some variation in the hands themselves.

 

Yes, I meant that hour and minute hand of the watch you initially posted are different from other common versions as well and I stated it above.

I did not intend to say your watch is wrong, it looks nice as it is, but your question was to have a look at it and comment on service parts.

I have said what I spotted and I told you my thoughts.