Identifying model of family friend's Speedmaster

Posts
81
Likes
65
Hello all,

Was hoping to tap into the collective knowledge to see if you could help me help a family friend identity the precise model of watch.

My friend's late husband was an avid photographer, who, over the decades, took over 10,000 photos with his various Hasselblad cameras. I have been slowly but surely scanning these negatives to make a digital record of his work. In one of the photos where the late husband appears, I saw him wearing a definite chronograph, but could not make out what it was. I asked my friend if she knew what watches her husband had. Not only did she know, she still had them.

The one in the photo was a Speedmaster. The photo was taken in 1973, so I know the watch dates from before that time. Here is what I saw when I looked at the watch (my poor photos attached, I apologize for the quality and the dust on the watch. I should have brushed it off a bit before photographing. It has been sitting in a box in a closet for at least 15 years):

(1) A step dial with painted logo (I tried to get a close up showing the step, it is more obvious in person);
(2) A DON bezel showing honest wear.
(3) A square end chrono hand.
(4) "stick" hands.
(5) hippocampus on back
(6) A 1039/516 bracelet (with another, sealed NOS 1039/516 bracelet)
(7) I am not *quite* sure how to tell if the crown or pushers are service items. My friend says her husband had the watch serviced in San Francisco over the years, but she doesn't recall anything ever being "broken" on it.

I don't have the tool to open the back (nor would I feel comfortable doing so even if I did) so I can't check the serial number. But based on the above, my somewhat novice guess from reading Speedmaster 101 is that its probably a 145.022-69 (specifically because of the DON bezel + painted logo).

Does that seem accurate?

She thinks she has the box and paperwork somewhere (which would obviously help), but the only documentation she was able to find was a small red pamphlet with "operating instructions."

Thank you in advance for checking my work!

 
Posts
871
Likes
3,734
I’m no expert on the -69 reference but if it were me looking at the watch using the Speedmaster101 info and the e-copy of moonwatch only, pretty sure I’d come to the same conclusion. I’d wait for those who are more familiar to chime in, but other than opening up the case back, I'd say you hit the nail on the head.
 
Posts
21,932
Likes
49,736
Absent any unexpected weirdness, your reasoning is correct.
 
Posts
2,221
Likes
4,420
Agree with above well described looks all original and well preserved.
 
Posts
5,467
Likes
19,046
Was this your first entry into the dusty, musty world of Speedmasters? If so, your detailed analysis is impressive.

Also, scanning 10k negatives is quite a challenge and very time consuming. Also impressive.
 
Posts
81
Likes
65
Was this your first entry into the dusty, musty world of Speedmasters? If so, your detailed analysis is impressive.

Also, scanning 10k negatives is quite a challenge and very time consuming. Also impressive.

Thank you! And thanks all for the feedback.

A few years ago I thought about diving into buying a Speedmaster. Between that and lurking on this forum to spy on pretty photos of watches, I picked up on some stuff!

And thanks re: the scanning. Doing the scanning has actually gotten me into black and white film photography, and scanning the negatives helps give me inspiration!
 
Posts
81
Likes
65
One other question: I advised her not to wind the watch or try to use the chronograph function since the watch has not been serviced in many years (it has to have been *at least* 13 years). Assuming she intends to just put this back in the closet until she decides what to do with it, is there any reason she should have it serviced now? I guess in other words: Is there any risk to an unserviced movement from simply sitting?
 
Posts
2,221
Likes
4,420
I don’t think so. Also if she decides to sell it the buyer may prefer that it’s not serviced and have their own guru go at it. So unless she’s going to give it to family to wear I would leave it be for now. I’m not watchmaker but I think that is way to go
 
Posts
12,148
Likes
21,083
Agree with the -69 conclusion.

Also, unless your friend or someone else is going to start wearing it frequently, don’t get it serviced. Whether sitting back in a drawer or being sold, best to leave as is to maximise sale price and minimise risk ir any damage from a non recommended watchmaker.
 
Posts
5,467
Likes
19,046
One other question: I advised her not to wind the watch or try to use the chronograph function since the watch has not been serviced in many years (it has to have been *at least* 13 years). Assuming she intends to just put this back in the closet until she decides what to do with it, is there any reason she should have it serviced now? I guess in other words: Is there any risk to an unserviced movement from simply sitting?

The damage happens when the metal moves. As long as there is no water exposure, the watch will be fine sitting. The gaskets will get hard and may even turn to a tar like substance, which might allow moisture into the movement. So the watch should be kept in a dry area.

Most people will say it does not make sense to service a watch if it will just sit unused.

It is not unusual for women to wear Speedmasters. If there are family members who she might want to inherit the watch, a watch makes a wonderful connection to the person who wore it previously. Flesh touching metal touching flesh. There is something magical in that.

At the same time, it is very common for families to sell watches and jewelry simply because the items don't match a different lifestyle or interest. Many of us are naturally biased towards keeping and wearing the watch, but we're watch nerds and not everyone is. Hopefully she'll consider keeping it as an option.
 
Posts
17,809
Likes
27,006
high grade early 145.022-69

In terms of very early 861’s this is the best I’ve seen.