Forums Latest Auctions Members

Ed Whites 105003 serial #

  1. Boony

    Boony Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    258
    Likes
    406
    anyone happen to know the serial # of Ed Whites 105003?
     
  2. MikeMan2727

    MikeMan2727 Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    1,107
    Likes
    4,507
    I hear this site could be useful: http://speedmaster101.com/105-003/

    Calibre 321
    Serial Range:

    • -63 2052 1xxx – 2052 6xxx
    • -64 2052 7xxx – 2282 7xxx and 2208 9xxx
    • -65 2282 7xxx – 2544 6xxx
     
  3. Marty McDawg

    Marty McDawg Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    319
    Likes
    568
    @MikeMan2727 I misread the post like you did. I think he means Ed Whites actual serial number on his personal 105.003.

    otherwise he should certainly browse the site you mentioned.
     
    MikeMan2727 likes this.
  4. ext1

    ext1 Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    966
    Likes
    1,348
  5. airansun

    airansun Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    1,469
    Likes
    11,861
    Good question.

    The below chart, which has been circulated here before, does not have any Speedmasters listed for Ed White, or Gus Grissom or Roger Chaffee, who all died in the Apollo 1 fire. Don’t know why.

    6E7BA42E-C2C0-4AE8-956C-5BF7C2EA5D7C.jpeg
     
    Gefa and hugoafonso like this.
  6. Foo2rama

    Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    11,657
    Likes
    15,948
    There is a chart out there somewhere with the NASA serial numbers, model information, and I believe Omega serial numbers out there. I cannot for the life of me find it right now.

    I found an old version of the chart from 2006, it does not list Ed Whites serial number, but the flown space walk watch is 100% in the hands of NASA and not in the wild at this point. https://www.worldoftime.de/data/cms_data/files/6887018b54652924432c4e168ae869a3.pdf
     
    airansun likes this.
  7. abrod520

    abrod520 Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    5,912
    Likes
    17,946
    Is that true though? I thought I had read somewhere that after the fire, NASA gifted White's issued watch to his family. Seems to be reflected in that chart too, but as it's from 2006 that situation may have changed
     
  8. Foo2rama

    Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    11,657
    Likes
    15,948
    Whoops your right I read that backwards. The family had it in 2006.
     
  9. Boony

    Boony Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    258
    Likes
    406
    Yes I meant actually Ed Whites watch... so seems like this info not available then. Is there a version of the chart with the full serial? Want to see how close mine is to flown 105003’s... Ed’s not on the more but Young, Borman and Lovell would do for now
     
  10. TLIGuy

    TLIGuy Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    1,482
    Likes
    6,974
    Borman - 20525675
    Lovell - 20525676
    Young - 20525671
     
    Edited Oct 3, 2018
    Speedy2254, JimJupiter, Dan S and 2 others like this.
  11. gdupree

    gdupree Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    819
    Likes
    1,399
  12. airansun

    airansun Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    1,469
    Likes
    11,861
    Damn. Even went thru the Apollo 1 fire!

    Wonder where it is now and what it would sell for.

    Certainly more than the best ever Ultraman 1. ;)

    DF472F17-E019-4665-BB10-91A371CEBF8E.jpeg 2B153848-C9E6-450F-B4EE-A66E25DBEB35.jpeg
     
    Edited Oct 3, 2018
  13. padders

    padders Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    4,673
    Likes
    6,546
    The bit I find interesting about all these various tables is that they normally show that the first watch worn on the moon was a 145.012. Yet everyone seems to think the 105.012 is the special ref for some reason. Armstrong may well have had an earlier ref but that stayed in the capsule. All will doubtless be revealed next year.
     
    Edited Oct 4, 2018
    hanky6 and hugoafonso like this.
  14. Foo2rama

    Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Oct 3, 2018

    Posts
    11,657
    Likes
    15,948
  15. hugoafonso

    hugoafonso Oct 5, 2018

    Posts
    100
    Likes
    193
    Agree. Armstrong 105.012-65 and Buzz (maybe) 145.012-67
     
  16. TLIGuy

    TLIGuy Oct 5, 2018

    Posts
    1,482
    Likes
    6,974
    "For historical accuracy it is absolutely true that the first Speedmaster to land on the moon was the ST105.012. Both Neil Armstrong’s and Buzz Aldrin’s Speedmasters were ST105.012 models. We know this since the Omega Museum is working directly with James H. Ragan, and they have had access to all the original NASA documents. This includes also the documents that proves the reference of Buzz Aldrin’s Speedmaster, that is now for sure a ST105.012."

    Full article here
     
  17. padders

    padders Oct 6, 2018

    Posts
    4,673
    Likes
    6,546
    That is persuasive but would be more convincing still if some indication of the serial of Aldrin’s watch were quoted. Perhaps new light will be shed on this next year. Omega surely won’t resist the temptation to market their inevitable 50th Anni LE with more concrete info as presumably that watch will be loosely based on the actual first ‘Moonwatch’ by which I mean the first on the lunar surface. An even bigger splash would be created if they had in fact located the original on the quiet and produced it!
     
  18. padders

    padders Oct 6, 2018

    Posts
    4,673
    Likes
    6,546
    Sooo getting back to the original topic, bearing in mind that no serial for Ed White’s watch has been suggested in this thread that I can see, are we even certain which model of ‘Ed White’ 105.003 Lt Col White wore? Does logic suggest that it must be a 105.003-63 or 64 if it was in his possession for some time prior to his June ‘65 EVA? If a ‘64, wouldn’t the shape of the lugs help to pin it down? Based on the serials for the later Gemini watches, is the 105.003-63 the likeliest candidate?

    It does seem that there is ambiguity over serials and exact model of both the 2 most famous and significant Speedmasters used in the Space program!
     
    Edited Oct 6, 2018
  19. hugoafonso

    hugoafonso Oct 6, 2018

    Posts
    100
    Likes
    193
    Didn’t know about this news updated, even more when on the nasa register database that been available on the website, information was concering 145.012 Ref and serial.
    Glad to know all information is now been updated.
    Thank you
     
  20. TLIGuy

    TLIGuy Oct 6, 2018

    Posts
    1,482
    Likes
    6,974
    I would agree that more evidence such as the SN would be the most compelling argument but if Jim's name and work is cited as to how Aldrin's reference number was determined rest assured he has the information to back it up. He has spent the last couple of years working on correcting much of the incorrect information we have seen over the years and hopefully sooner than later some of that additional research and corrected information will be shared by him and Omega.

    Take this for what it is worth because it is just my educated guess. If you were to crack open White's Speedmaster I believe the case back would be stamped -64 because his was part of the initial batch of 105.003's. What I found most interesting about the Lovell, Borman and Young's serial numbers is that they are sequential with the exception of Young's most likely because other Gemini 105.003 serial numbers which we can't positively identify yet fill in the gap between them. I assume Omega produced all the initial Gemini watches in a batch for delivery hence the reason the serial numbers are sequential. Also, the Gemini Speedmasters worn by Lovell (7) , Schirra, Conrad, and Lovell (12) all have -64 stamped case backs. By my logic there is no reason to believe that White's would fall out of the range of the ones we can positively identify.
     
    Edited Oct 6, 2018
    padders and SpeedyPhill like this.