I have been told that people on this forum are amongst the most knowledgible in the world regarding speedmasters. So I am putting you to the test!

I acquired this vintage 321 speedmaster profesional and I have been trying to figure out whats original and whats replacement and, most importantly, what the reference is. I dont exactly expect a 50 year old watch to be entirely new, but I want to know exactly whats been done to her, and if shes a vintage franken assembled from vintage pre-moon parts!

The watch was purchased 5 years ago from a high end vintage Omega trader in London, which would suggest that they are in the know. The documents that came with the watch say its a 145.012, but I think this wrong or at the least that its not entirely a 145.012. Most importantly, the case back ref say 105.012-66CB. Indeed I think i can even see the CB signature bevelling facet junction on the lugs, but its really hard to photograph. The serial number is 2495xxxx and appears to be in the 145-012 and 105.012 overlap period. The watch came with the original 1039 bracelet with 516 end links. It has a stepped dial applied logo, dot diagonal 70 dot over 90 bezel. Long tritium markers that extend through the minute scale on the dial, and (I think) wide space between T SWISS MADE T- is that a slam dunk for a 145-012? The back features single step sea monster. The hands are Baton – drop second, they appear to have been re-lumed at some point. There is no patina on the dial and i think the original tritium must have been scraped off during a service? the dial otherwise is in good shape. The pushers (if they are original) appear to be the short 3x5mm kind which would be consistent with 105.012-66.

So I think, the case for a 145012 is the spacing on the swiss made, and the jewelers document (the receipt), while the case and the pushers suggest 105-012. Is this a 145-012/105-012 franken? What actually is the difference between these two references? Could a 145-012 movement and dial been placed into a 105.012-66CB case? or could the entire watch except for the caseback be 145-012? is it just the spacing on the swiss made and the pushers? How can I figure it out? HELP!

Does anyone have any further insight? I did send away for the archive files from omega, but i dont know how long it will take.

I also uploaded the photos to imgur
http://imgur.com/a/Xcgnh
http://imgur.com/a/Xcgnh

 

It's probably a polished -66 CB. Many of those had the wide-spaced T dial; this one still has its short pushers. Aside from the missing dial lume, replacement hands and the case polish it's actually quite nice! I'd say worth putting the effort into having the lume touched up by an expert. Just be sure to document it and point it out if you ever sell it.

 

If you can see remnants of the facet junction on the top of the lugs, or can tell that they have been polished out then the watch makes sense as a 105.012-66CB.

 

My bet is that a jeweler didn't know the difference in the transitional period, and wrote down the new reference when he sold last year's model. Honest mistake. Since it is a transitional piece, would make sense to have a possible later style dial, as they were probably using what they had access to at the factory.

The archive papers will answer your questions.

Sort those hands!

 

Everything about that watch is correct for a 105.012-66 CB. Mine also has a 2495xxxx serial.

The only things that look like they aren't are the papers (and hands).

 

I think that the 25.95x.xxx serial is a 105.012.66. Somebody mangled the case though.

 

Sounds like the Omega dealer was definitely high.

However in seriousness, what papers are we talking about? Jewlers receipt from five years ago or original sales receipt from new?

I think it's a 105.012-66CB with a polished case and incorrect hands, and a scraped dial. Could easily be improved all round.

 

Just the Jewler's reciept, nothing original from Omega. But why are the hands "incorrect"? They clearly have been re-lumed but the chrono hand at least is the drop chrono, not the flat end spear that was used after 105.012. So while obviously they have been somehow cleaned, relumed and touched up, are they not correct for this reference?

 

As I wrote below , why are the hands considered "incorrect". Isnt the drop chrono hand instead of the flat end spear correct here? and what distinguishes the minute, hour and second hand

How can I sort them? what can i do to improve the aithenticit of the hands? and is it only the chrono, minute and hour hands, or also the hands in the subdials that need sorting?

 

So they are the correct form (tear drop) for this reference, but have the incorrect lume? Is that it?

 

Snap a lume pic in the dark and if the hands glow like torches, they're probably replacement superluminova hands. I doubt a dealer who's "in the know" would go to lengths to refurbish old hands with a new paint coat when these replacements are still easily obtainable.

Speaking of which, subdial hands may be replacements too. Given the age you'd expect to see some wear on any original hands.

 

I think what got my goat was the expression this was bought from a high end omega dealer.

I think they have some nerve selling a watch in this condition, and with that description to boot.

Now I have got all my archaic phrases out of the way:

Its basically a decent watch - not a great one as it is let down by the state of the dial, the incongruous hands, and to a certain extent the sales receipt which tells me the watch has spent too long in the company of muppets.

The watch is a typical example of one that has not been cared for with any respect or sympathy we now almost take for granted. The characteristic facets of the CB case have been polished off. The dial has had all its lume removed, and the hands have been replaced with brand new Omega service replacements.

We are a step up from an assembly - a good step. This watch can be brought back quite well just by changing the hands.

We cannot un polish, but we can re -apply the lume. I see no sacrilege in that. Re luming is like plastic surgery. Mostly I dont like it but in the case of damage sometimes it is the only thing to do.

No post is complete without a photo - detail of a 105.012-66HF, with believed original lume:

 

How do i get original hands? something like this? This seems identical to what I already have on the watch.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/omega-speed...457964?hash=item464998bf6c:g:G5QAAOSwZ1lWfcwCPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

And about reapplying the lume, why is that any better than scraping off the old tritium and painting it white? just to have lume? it still wont patinate, at least not for a while.

 

Not to be picky here, but this implies intent, no? I've have seen so many of this reference with missing lume, that I have to suspect that many have simply just had the lume fall off.

 

...If it did, I still hope that it has been removed from the watch, as it'll be floating around the movement otherwise

 

Spacefruit is right. Just a change of hands and reluming (or if you can also find a used dial) will be your best option at the moment.