I came across this in my daily search today - listed as a 145.022-69. Its an interesting listing and a really good example for an analysis of condition and whether the parts are original and/or correct. So, particularly to those members who don't have years of experience and knowledge of Speedmasters, what are people's thoughts on this watch? https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.co.uk/ulk/itm/273939256783
Hi David. Why not make this thread a @ConElPueblo thread how to fish Speedies? You, of everyone, should be the one to make it. After all, you took one of my best, off my hands years ago
I am no speedmaster expert. My observations are: 1. There is a lot of corrosion on a movement serviced by Omega (as the certificate implies). I am not convinced the certificate and the movement belong together. 2. There is no step on the dial that runs inside of the minute track. I seem to remember that there should be one. 3. I am not sure if the caseback was born with the watch or not. It looks very NOS-ish. 4. Should it have a dot over 90 bezel? That is as far as my speedmaster knowledge carries me. I think I would rather buy a Speedmaster at an AD and be sure of what I bought than wade through this vintage rolex-like world!
In addition to the above comments, the hands look like SuperLuminova replacements. Definitely doesn't match the lume on the dial.
I’m a relative newbie so I will take a crack. Then others can add on/correct as needed. Dial: really like the plots on this one. Nice even yellow color. Bit surprised to see that yellow on a -69 as mine has light colored lume. There appear to be light speckles all over the dial, not sure what this is? I cannot see a step, so until I see some better pictures I’m going to assume service dial, especially when considering the color of the lume. Hands: look very white. Hard to see how these and the dial could have ever gone together. Bezel: modern service replacement Case: don’t like the polishing job on this at all. The case lines have been altered and the bottom right lug looks very faint. Caseback: suspiciously new looking Movement: signs of corrosion. Guessing water came in through the crown at some point. In summary, this is a Frankenstein with a damaged movement. Avoid
It’s a shame there isn’t a function where everyone’s replies could be hidden until the “grand reveal” but the things that stood out for me (echoing the above) and without any further research were dial looks like a replacement as no step when I think there should be one, and hands, bezel and case back all look like replacements too. I didn’t pick up on the case defects and the corrosion (still not 100% sure I see it) until I saw it mentioned above
+1 Serial number is too low for a 'Straight Writing', should be between 31... and 32... EDIT: Or put it the other way around: Caseback doesn't match the movement
Some obvious issues lol. So the expert question is “ When was it serviced?” Or actually “ When was it first serviced?” As I see signs of 2 separate services.
By no means good at this sort of thing... the bezel doesn’t just look like a replacement, i think it looks wrong. Spacing just seems off, not sure where exactly
As no one has yet spotted the howler yet, here is a clue http://speedmaster101.com/145-022-straight-writing/
The caseback is a NOS service. The indentations for the case opener extend all the way to the edges: Original: Service: photo credit to @Spacefruit 's link above
Some great replies so far and interesting to hear different views - especially about how this watch possibly started out. We can never be 100% sure on this, but it'd be good to hear opinions and reasoning on how this watch was originally delivered. I'll leave this brewing until at least tomorrow and then try to give an in depth reply outlining my thoughts on it.