Well, can't say if your example is the best in the world...but for sure, I have the smartest dog in the world:

 

In the interests of being completely fair - although the seller isn't coming across as someone I'd like to buy from, I don't believe he ever described it as NOS.

 

Even if I was looking for an Ultraman (which I'm not) AND if 80k was peanuts to me (which it certainly isn't) I'd pass on this watch. Buy the seller and all that....................

 

I agree and retract what I said, the seller did not claim it was NOS. I guess I may have interpreted that from him claiming it was the best Ultraman in the world which to me would mean NOS.

 

See post #19. He calls it NOS.

 

HAHAH! I retract my retraction, Dan, thank you, and stand by my original post that this watch isn't NOS

 

Read it again. He did not say his watch was NOS. He said the odds of finding one was 0%

 

You're right.

 

I wonder how many buyers who would pay 80k for an Omega Ultraman would not be members of this forum and would not bother to read this thread???

 

I'm a noob to all this so forgive me if I am a little confused - the extract says delivered to United States. I thought the UM's were for a Japanese TV show?

 

Nah, just happened to show up in a Japanese TV show, which is how it got its nickname.
Other than that it's just a rare Speedy to come by as so few of them were produced, and only for one year - 1968

 

It doesn't even qualify as a subjective statement. It would be "subjective" if it reflected his opinion based on his first-hand comparison to all other known examples; and he'd be perfectly entitled to his subjective opinion. Instead, it appears to be nothing more than (fairly dickish) hyperbolic puffery with no basis whatsoever beyond wishful thinking and his subjective opinion that his watch is nicer than one other example that sold for roughly half his asking price. It sounds exactly like something OmegaRolex posts about Grails.

Ridiculous puffery like that combined with an asking price of roughly twice the current market value of comparable examples invites much more pointed questions and more intense criticism (even from non-dicks) than might be appropriate if the same watch had just been described as a "great-looking all-original UM." The more (objectively) baseless your over-the-top puffery is, the less right you have to complain about critical comments directly addressing or questioning your over-the-top claim in good faith.

 

Not enough Ultraman pics in this thread. thanks @kov and @Vintagewtchzilla -- any others?

 

At the risk of being Dick x+1, IMO there’s something not right about this watch. It looks ‘prepped’ and not in an ‘as found’ state to me. That makes me wonder what’s been done to it, what has been changed and what ‘enhanced’.

I’ve tried examining the OP’s photos, here and eBay, but they are not high resolution enough to reach any firm conclusions. I don’t like that on the newly added photo, the image has been sooo color filtered that the red background is a strikingly different color. I wondered if the two images even portray the same dial, because the lume loss seems pretty evident in his original photos.

(Bear in mind that 145.012-67s seem to suffer lume loss more frequently than others.)

(From his eBay listing)

There are also ways, to my eyes, that the wear seems uneven, further suggesting ‘preparation’ to me. Here are a few blow ups from his eBay listing.


Anyway, I can’t tell — other than I would not be a buyer for this watch, even if it was a regular 145.012-67, listed for $9k to 10k.

To OP: this is what we do here. We pick apart watches, particularly the real expensive stuff. I’ve submitted my own watches to this scrutiny and appreciated the feedback. Without it, I wouldn’t have learned as much.

And defensiveness/attacking never seems to change anyone’s opinion.

 

Oh wow, this thread escalated quickly. Wouldn’t personally buy anything from this seller...

Even though I wouldn’t imagine the buyer not being familiar with OF, I feel that this thread should show up in a google search. So here is to that: Ultraman serial 26079520 145.012-67

 

1 up : here is a movie of 4 Ultramen ... I can see what all the fuss is about ...

 

I agree it’s a bold statement, and calling half the forum a dick is not helping, but I think we are all being a bit too harsh on the watch since this has turned into a mud throwing storm anyway. Based on these pictures nobody can be 100% sure.

Seems like a beautiful, exceptional piece at first sight. If it checks out, I’m sure it will be worth a lot to a collector out there.

Live and let live.

 

I would be interested in seeing a glow shot of the lume to actually see what is present. It still would not ensure that it was original and/or not prepped, but at this point it is tough to tell what is even present on the dial. That point at least makes it hard to compare to the others in this thread. I certainly don't like the missing paint from the center points of the hands on this listing, damaged typically caused when unfitting/refitting the hands after disassembly.

 

I know my opinion means nothing; HOWEVER I agree you could definitely take some better pics to go with that beautiful watch. Try a homemade light box. Seriously just an opinion as we all love those right. Sure is a fine example. I think people pay more in auction. What if you get a good offer but you will always wonder what auction could bring when people get into their bidding wars.

 

I'm just a happy amateur, but isn't the caseback a bit scratched, both in and out?