Help with identifying this Speedmaster model

Posts

293

Likes

233

FSG

·Aug 29, 2023

Hi all,
Am trying to identify this model am considering and whether it is original or not…
Any help is appreciated… so far for me the reference number does not look like it matches a 145.022 reference… but I might miss subtleties…
Don’t have much more info about the watch so far. I just got the pictures attached (as the seller is quite far from where I live)
Thanks a lot!

Edited: Aug 29, 2023

 

Posts

19,995

Likes

46,589

Dan S

·Aug 29, 2023

Why don't you think it is a 145.022?

 

Posts

293

Likes

233

FSG

·Aug 29, 2023

Because from guides I found online that reference (looks the same on movement and case, even though the second ‘8´ looks like a ´3´ on the movement ) corresponds to a ‘91 145.0022 model (3590-50).
Here is also an additional of the case back:

 

Posts

1,611

Likes

3,267

hansaboy

·Aug 29, 2023

Start here maybe!??

And good luck!👍

https://speedmaster101.com/assessment-guide/

https://speedmaster101.com/145-022_update/

 

Posts

293

Likes

233

FSG

·Aug 29, 2023

hansaboy

Start here maybe!??

And good luck!👍

https://speedmaster101.com/assessment-guide/

https://speedmaster101.com/145-022_update/

I did but could not really find a satisfying answer as to whether this model could be fully legit or is a franken…

 

Posts

5,331

Likes

8,301

Mark020

·Aug 29, 2023·not the sharpest pencil in the ΩF drawer

It is either legit or franken. What makes you think it is not legit?

 

Posts

293

Likes

233

FSG

·Aug 29, 2023

For a first I would have expected a « 145.0022 » on the case back and not « 145.022 » but am no pro…

 

Posts

16

Likes

50

pete_mcc

·Aug 29, 2023

But it’s a 145.022, not a 145.0022

 

Posts

293

Likes

233

FSG

·Aug 29, 2023

pete_mcc

But it’s a 145.022, not a 145.0022

Not according to the serial number…

 

Posts

17,513

Likes

26,456

Foo2rama

·Aug 29, 2023·Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can.

FSG

Not according to the serial number…

Sigh…. Perhaps you should understand the relationship of 145.022 and 145.0022



to everyone else looks like a late 80’s piece to me with a pulsation dial added. I didn’t check the serial. But the dial and caseback would be my guess from the fonts and other details.

 

Posts

293

Likes

233

FSG

·Aug 29, 2023

This might answer part of the equation:

 

Posts

17,513

Likes

26,456

Foo2rama

·Aug 29, 2023·Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can.

FSG

This might answer part of the equation:

That is not the entire story..
There are watches from the late 80's marked 145.0022 till the mid 90's which was the internal part number for the case, while the reference was 145.022. Hence they are the same all it does is denote the time period that the watch left the factory for the 145.022 run, which was anything after 1980 into the 90's when Omega moved to the new reference system.

Edited: Aug 29, 2023

 

M

Posts

453

Likes

807

mountainunder

·Aug 30, 2023

"I Love my Speedmaster" and check the serial number 48267425, which is 3590.50.
https://www.ilovemyspeedmaster.com/productiondateprediction/

 

Posts

293

Likes

233

FSG

·Aug 30, 2023

Then can we say with certainty that the case back does not correspond with the rest of the watch? Or is it only the dial that looks like an ´80s one on a ‘90s watch?

 

Posts

17,513

Likes

26,456

Foo2rama

·Aug 30, 2023·Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can.

FSG

Then can we say with certainty that the case back does not correspond with the rest of the watch? Or is it only the dial that looks like an ´80s one on a ‘90s watch?

Since you apparently have a copy of MWO...

Also this has been answered at least 1 time already.

But serial number, caseback, and dial are all correct for an early 90's watch.

 

Posts

293

Likes

233

FSG

·Aug 30, 2023

Foo2rama

Since you apparently have a copy of MWO...

Also this has been answered at least 1 time already.

Not at all, found the picture and explanation on another thread…

 

Posts

17,513

Likes

26,456

Foo2rama

·Aug 30, 2023·Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can.

serial number, caseback, and dial are all correct for an early 90's watch.

In fact as its a 18 jewel marked 17 jewel watch its puts it into a narrow range of watches that span from 1989 to early 1991. Which matches the speedmaster101 prediction.

 

Posts

293

Likes

233

FSG

·Aug 30, 2023

Ok thanks a lot, am really a newbie with speedmasters… don’t want to end-up wearing a non-sense watch.
And from what info I also gathered it is a long S and R model with A.D.B. case, which seems specific. Any idea if that is then an interesting model and what is a faire value price for it?

 

Posts

247

Likes

186

Perrier

·Aug 30, 2023

I monitor the fake watch forums (know thy enemy) and there are no good speedmaster fakes. They don't have a movement which can handle the positions of the subdials. Basically you can spot a fake a mile away due to the spacing between the subdials. Your watch has correct spacing.

I don't know enough to know if the back case is original or not, but the dial and movement are real, assuming the watch can keep time and the chronograph works.

 

Posts

17,513

Likes

26,456

Foo2rama

·Aug 30, 2023·Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can.

Perrier

I monitor the fake watch forums (know thy enemy) and there are no good speedmaster fakes. They don't have a movement which can handle the positions of the subdials. Basically you can spot a fake a mile away due to the spacing between the subdials. Your watch has correct spacing.

I don't know enough to know if the back case is original or not, but the dial and movement are real, assuming the watch can keep time and the chronograph works.

The question is not if this is a fake, the question is "Is this watch made up of parts that do not go together"