I am asking because the more I read the less I understand.
Is this possible ?
It's been lying in my drawer for a long time and then I just saw those dials at WatchCo.

 

Thought my post explained this pretty clearly, but I guess not....so no, it will not fit.

Now if you wanted to get someone to cut off the dial feet, and mount new feet that will fit in the Cal. 861, then yes it's possible, but not as a straight swap.

Cheers, Al

 

Then the feets were probably cut in this one then.

 

The starting question was, if there is a 100 % recognizeable difference between a 145.012 and a 145.022 dial.
In my eyes this is not the applied logo, as it existet during a transitional period and it is not the the step of the dial. In my view, the only criteria is the 5 minutes tritium indexes, which are always long to the outer edge of the dial at the 145.012 and wich are always shorter at the 145.022.

The adverts from those times are not reliabel, as they show kind of "photoshoped" potpuries of the models. There exists even adverts with 105.003 with 2915 dial and Base1000 bezel

 

After a night of sleep, I thought of this : since the dial feet of the 321 dial are bigger and longer, wouldn't it be possible to downsize them to fit an 861 movement. I never opened the watch pictured, and waited several years to get the right dial to have it serviced because the main-spring is broken. I said to myself that I could sell this nice early 321 dial to finance the right 861 dial. But with this thread I realize that this dial will probably have a feet problem.

 

Here is what I found on WatchUseek in 2006:

Re: 321 Dial on 861 Movement

As I mentioned in an earlier post, a good watchmaker can fit a "vintage" cal. 321 dial (applied Omega symbol) to an 861/1861 movement.

Here is a comparison photo of the dials with the cal. 321 dial on the right:



Note that the posts on the 321 dial are longer and larger in diameter than those on the 861/1861.

There are two methods that will allow a 321 dials to be used on the current 861/1861 movements:

1. The posts on the 321 dial can be machined down to make them fit.

2. The posts on the 321 dial can be removed and replaced with posts that will fit.

John​

 

Sure it is poss but who would like to ruin a nice 321 Dial... just my thoughts

 

I made some research today. This dial would be the right one for a Speedmaster 105.012 because the T of the Swiss made are closer of 1 minute. Am I right ?

 

The dial looks like a 105.012-65 or earlier. The caseback though is not from a 861 transitional. It should have a premoon caseback.

Now your starting to get it.

 

I got this not long ago. I understood it to be a transitional...a later, possibly last year of the transitional. But, with all that's in thread i'm not so sure. So here are my photos. The only thing I'm certain is the bracelet is a 1039, with 516 end pieces, ca. 861 and serial number dating to 1971. Any and all comments encouraged and welcomed. .

 

That is a '69 premoon. I'm wearing mine now. It's not a transitional. The transitional has the 321 dial with the applied Omega. It's often referred to as the '69 transitional. Yours has the 861 dial. The caseback has no inscription about the moon, hence it's a premoon. Some people refer to it as transitional because it has the premoon caseback.

 

Thanks for weighing in. I assumed transitional as it is chronologically after the 1969 moon landing, cal 861, embossed logo on the dial and does not have any moon landing reference on the case back. No worries, I really like it and have another of cal 861, 1984 vintage with logo and moon landing reference on the case back, with 1171 bracelet. Being fairly new to Omega collecting and this forum, I find all the available information interesting and sometimes confusing...but all things considered, this is a very fine forum.

 

I'm not sure if this lends anything to the discussion but this thread is getting some good information out there.

These are my to 1968 Speedmasters. Both have the 861 movement, yet both have very different dials. The difference in the dials is the main reason I keep both because visually they are two completely different looking watches.

The one of the left has the dial that I most associate the 145.012. I have often wondered where the one on the right falls in the spectrum of dials. I had once asked if there was sort of transitional dial between the 145.012 and the current day 145.022 because the one on the right seems to fall in between. The left appears to be the exact dial on the 321 145.012's. The right is similar, but very different, when held side by side. The right has larger 5min markers (longer), longer second markers, and the outer ring a larger diameter. Visually, side by side, the one on the right looks like a bigger dial.

Also, one of the most attractive difference is that the dial on the right is jet black while the dial on the left is lighter. At first I attributed it to fading but the older one shares the same color as my modern 145.022.
Left 2655369X Right 2655531X

 

Maybe it just looks that way because the minute hand of the left one is shorter because the right one touches the second marks, the left one doesn't, my 145.012 original hand also doesn't touch them.

 

Saved for future reference - obasac

 

Looks like new Luminova flat end chrono-seconds hand (used since 1997) (Tritium flat end between 1968-1997)
Amazingly nice (replacement?) close T dial (B2 used between 1964 & 1967)

 

AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

Another necrothreadiac!

The difference is simple math: .010 and 1 year. Geez!

 

Kreeping above 150 posts