Help w/ 105.012 Speedmaster

Posts
13
Likes
14
Hello!

I just recently acquired my very first "quality" vintage watch, and after purchasing I realized I've probably fallen into a few typical first time buyers tropes: wondering what I've gotten myself into after the fact, and wanting some form of acceptance from the community. After years of looking on from the sidelines at the vintage watch community, I found myself really wanting to get that "one great watch", and this for me was a vintage 321 Speedmaster that had good patina'd lume plots, small details like the DON bezel, pleasing wear and marks (to me). I was willing to accept imperfections in the case, some polishing, healthy scratches to the bezel (all adding to the charm) if the watch "felt good".

I found that watch a little while ago in a 105.012-64 pictured here, and while I think I have a good handle on it's strengths and weaknesses, I would love some kind criticisms/advice if anyone has any to offer. I believe the chrono hand was replaced during a service and isn't original, due to it being a flat end and not drop. It looks like the pushers are original as well, but even after constantly comparing different pushers in the Moonwatch book, I still can't seem to tell if that's true or not. I believe the crown to be original. The hesalite has the Omega logo in the middle, and when I'm wearing the watch outside, the brown strap makes me believe the dial is starting to turn a nice deep shade of brown as well. The inside of the caseback says "HF" and the reference number like in the Moonwatch book. It did not come with an original bracelet, but did come with a nice new Omega leather strap that I liked a lot. I believe it's been serviced within the last year (I'm happy to try and add movement pics when I get home). I'm waiting for an extract from Omega for its "birthday", and would really love any advice on if its worth it to try to track down a vintage tritium drop chrono hand, or even just look for tritium hour/minute hands as well.

I've really been enjoying the articles on whether or not to send it in for service too, so any general recommendations to keep it tip top would also be appreciated.

Thank you again in advance for being here. I happy to add more info/pics if they would help!
- D

 
Posts
4,114
Likes
16,312
Cool watch in a "had a life" condition. Everything looks fine except, as you mentioned, that chrono hand which should have a drop end. 👍
 
Posts
1,552
Likes
3,648
Pushers look ok to me.
+1
Pushers are short and fat neck, correct for the 105.012 reference.

I don't like the crown, it seems way to "round" on the outer rim...

Anyway, super nice Speedy 👍🥰
 
Posts
567
Likes
1,109
Looks like a nice, honest example. I think you’ve bought well. Attractive dial and the case looks reasonably good.
 
Posts
11
Likes
3
Hello!
What seems right:
Pusher: type 3 , wide and short, Bezel: DON & Diagonal 70
What i would check (need more detailed photos):
Dial: seems more a Spaced T (1966/69) than a Close T (1964/67, thinner font)
What is wrong:
Hands: chrono hand baton instead of drop

BTW a great watch if the price was ok 👍
 
Posts
82
Likes
50
Some say wide spaced T dial is only correct for 105012-66, but I don‘t think there is a common consensus.
Pushers look correct and they even have the fat neck, which have been replaced on a lot of 105012s, so that‘s pretty cool.
24-tooth crown is also correct even though it looks pretty rounded-off.
Double-bevel caseback: check.

I would try to find a correct drop-shaped chrono seconds hand. It adds so much to the watch because on first glance it‘s the most distinguishing feature from more modern Speedmasters (and the hunt is quite gratifying).

My first „quality“ watch was also a 105012 and I absolutely love it, so I think I can say you‘ve made a pretty good choice here. Enjoy it!
 
Posts
4,114
Likes
16,312
Finding a tear drop chronohand at a realistic price gonna be a big challenge

FIFY

considering my personal stock of Tritium hands, I wouldn’t call it a big challenge if the price doesn’t matter 😀
 
Posts
13
Likes
14
Thank you all for the input! It's really hard to put into words what an amazing resource this site is.
Just in case, I tried to take a clearer shot of the dial, and it does look like spaced T's, along with a shorter "E" in Omega. Really curious what the extract says now.



And FWIW, I wound up paying a dealer's markup from "Fair" pricing on Speedmaster101's site (w/ a warranty, which may or may not be matter).

I think once the honeymoon wears off, I'm going to start looking for a drop chrono hand, or maybe even a set of hands if I need to. I'd love any recommendations for any Mid-Atlantic repairs shops anyone here trusts as well. The only thread I've found so far recommended someone in Central/Northern NJ, so would love to know if there are any others.

Thanks again!
 
Posts
13
Likes
14
kov kov
FIFY

considering my personal stock of Tritium hands, I wouldn’t call it a big challenge if the price doesn’t matter 😀

Oh no! 😁 I'm scared to ask, but I would love a quote or a PM if it's not too much trouble. I'm even curious what a skeletonized chrono hand could be (although I'd rather a relumed set if it's all equal).
 
Posts
13
Likes
14
The sweep seconds hand can be painted and lumed to match your other hands/indices. (and the watch deserves the correct hand) This question re the dial is one of those that makes me scratch my head. Are we to believe the watch went in for service when it was nearly brand new and got a new dial so soon? Which is more likely, that batches of dials (and this was likely often just a batch issue, not an intended change by Omega) overlapped again and again from change to change or that a brand new watch received a service dial? The Moon book and intense scrutiny has created a bit too much reliance on their imperfect findings, in my opinion. As much as some would LOVE for everything to have a perfectly neat cut off point and no bleed over from generation to generation, it isn't very likely to be the case. With the older Speedmasters, the argument for neat and orderly boundaries is very difficult to make. It's a great dial, and appropriate for the era. The crown should also be no concern.

What I am beginning to see that IS some concern is dials with lum that is attractive yet may be applied to "look" imperfect to match original work. I'm sure many of you have seen re lums that are just too perfect, and now I'm seeing some that are a bit too well-flawed, if that makes sense. That is not to say this dial is re lumed. I honestly can't tell at a distance, and it looks great. It's just a general observation that is probably going to become an issue. There are a few very talented artists out there doing great work on dials. And for me, a dial with great patina makes ALL the difference in value.

And my one problem with this watch and many others in the age of the 5k usd DON bezel is a bezel that appears much too worn compared with the dial. I'll always think a beautiful dial deserves a nice bezel. (I know, a dial is protected and can show very little wear while the bezel takes a beating.) Gone are the days when Speedmaster guys would have a watch with this bezel and buy one for 100 bucks in great condition to replace it. It wasn't really so long ago.

I really like your insight, thank you!

RE: bezel. This may sound odd, but one of the things that drew me to the watch (besides the dial and it being a Speedmaster) was the wear on the bezel. Like some of my favorite old leather shoes, the scratches show age and character that I really enjoy, especially as a tool watch. Being a lefty I wear this on my right hand, and most of the bezel scrapes and dings appear on the left edging, just where most of the marks I’ve given some of my everyday watches are. It was part of romance of it - that whoever took care of the watch before me shared something. Even if this isn’t true, it’s something about the watch that resonated, like a made up “clue” about its past.
 
Posts
2,306
Likes
5,640
Wide spaced T dial on a 105.012-64 is a no-go in my book.
This dial is 100% later than the watch and no way it came out of the factory like that.
The (correct) narrow Spaced T dials can be observed until the last quarter of 1967 in the 105.012-66 reference.
No way a wide T dial went back in time 2 years and found itself in this watch...
Sorry to spoil the party, but this is a Franken.
Edited:
 
Posts
2,520
Likes
17,820
I'm sure many of you have seen re lums that are just too perfect, and now I'm seeing some that are a bit too well-flawed, if that makes sense. That is not to say this dial is re lumed. I honestly can't tell at a distance, and it looks great. It's just a general observation that is probably going to become an issue. There are a few very talented artists out there doing great work on dials. And for me, a dial with great patina makes ALL the difference in value.

And my one problem with this watch and many others in the age of the 5k usd DON bezel is a bezel that appears much too worn compared with the dial.

Yeah, I don’t like the lume on the dial; I’d be surprised if it were original. And, I don’t think the dial matches the watch or the hands. The case, bezel and back are more worn than the dial is aged.

It’s true, it has the correct pushers.

I won’t get into the close T vs. wide T debate on 105.012-64s other than to say I would shy away from buying a -64 that had a wide T dial. I think @ndgal is correct, but I don’t have his expertise and the standard references don’t help.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a franken; I think it was a little aggressively refreshed by someone with insufficient sympathy (so to speak).

I wonder what the movement looks like.
Edited:
 
Posts
21,729
Likes
49,301
Wide spaced T dial on a 105.012-64 is a no-go in my book.
This dial is 100% later than the watch and no way it came out of the factory like that.
The (correct) narrow Spaced T dials can be observed until the last quarter of 1967 in the 105.012-66 reference.
No way a wide T dial went back in time 2 years and found itself in this watch...
Sorry to spoil the party, but this is a Franken.

Yeah, I don’t like the lume on the dial; I’d be surprised if it were original. And, I don’t think the dial matches the watch or the hands. The case, bezel and back are more worn than the dial is aged.

It’s true, it has the correct pushers.

I won’t get into the close T vs. wide T debate on 105.012-64s other than to say I would shy away from buying a -64 that had a wide T dial. I think @ndgal is correct, but I don’t have his expertise and the standard references don’t help.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a franken; I think it was a little aggressively refreshed by someone with insufficient sympathy (so to speak).

I wonder what the movement looks like.

I think that the -64 claim is just based on the OP's first post. We haven't actually seen photos of the inside case-back and we don't know the serial. We have seen so many mistakes and misunderstandings in the past, that I think we should see the inside before making final judgement.
 
Posts
2,520
Likes
17,820
@Dan S : Fair enough.

In the meanwhile, any thoughts on the lume or the seeming mismatch between the components’ wear?
 
Posts
82
Likes
50
I think that the -64 claim is just based on the OP's first post. We haven't actually seen photos of the inside case-back and we don't know the serial. We have seen so many mistakes and misunderstandings in the past, that I think we should see the inside before making final judgement.
It has a double beveled caseback, so it´s either a -63, -64, or -65 and none of these refs should have a wide spaced T dial to my knowledge.
 
Posts
21,729
Likes
49,301
@Dan S : Fair enough.

In the meanwhile, any thoughts on the lume or the seeming mismatch between the components’ wear?

It has a double beveled caseback, so it´s either a -63, -64, or -65 and none of these refs should have a wide spaced T dial to my knowledge.

I don't disagree with anything said above, but here's a wild hypothetical just to illustrate my point. I don't know why I'm even saying this since it's unlikely as hell, but what if he cracks it open and shows us a 26M serial? Then could everything be correct except for the caseback, including the sweep hand? OK, I realize it's still a franken even with just a replaced case-back. Yes, I also see the wonky and mismatched lume, I agree it's most likely to be a put-together, and I wouldn't buy it. But we're still missing pieces of the puzzle, that's all I'm saying.