Forums Latest Members
  1. Pahawi Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    1,150
    Likes
    3,360
    Original box and papers included. According to the seller everything works as it should.

    Chrono sec. hand is wrong, right?


    1.jpg 2.jpg 3.jpg 4.jpg 6.jpg 7.jpg 8.jpg 9.jpg

    Thanks.
     
  2. JohnSteed Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    4,402
    Likes
    5,762
    Opinions may go both ways on chrono seconds hand. Weren't there to be a transition to cal. 861 later on 1968? This watch is cal. 321. So IMHO, leaning yes at that price, but likely wouldn't buy I'm not satisfied on condition generally -

    1. missing loom plots &
    2. bezel faded, not too bad (some like this, i think)
     
  3. speedy4ever Moonwatch Only Author Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    639
    Likes
    782
    Chrono hand second is the correct form.
     
    Darlinboy, gorene and JohnSteed like this.
  4. rolexfantastic Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    383
    Likes
    148
    Buy !!!! like now !!!
     
    JohnSteed likes this.
  5. Privateday7 quotes Miss Universe Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    5,753
    Likes
    2,903
    Buy........and then sell to me :)
     
  6. Time Exposure coordinates his cast with his car's paint job Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    1,597
    Likes
    1,067
    Buy it or forward the seller's details. :)
     
  7. Joe K. Curious about this text thingy below his avatar Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    1,647
    Likes
    2,099
    Watch is pictured with 2 different bracelets? Which will it be coming with and what are they?
    The chrono hand is correct, but the lume looks much newer than other markers, so could be a replacement hand.

    The way the prices are going this is a buy. If you get an original period bracelet that would be a nice extra bonus.
     
  8. Pahawi Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    1,150
    Likes
    3,360
    Good eye there on the bracelet :thumbsup: Seller claim he just tried another bracelet on it during his photo session, but that it will come with it's 1450 bracelet. We'll see when it show up here :)

    Great too that you believe the chrono sec. hand is OK.

    Thanks to ya´ all :thumbsup:
     
  9. richardew Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    446
    Likes
    530
    Nice watch and a good buy. I'd like to see more photos of the dial, but at that price I'd buy it anyway. Why does everybody think that the incorrect sweep second hand is the correct one? It is not correct and looks new! All of the later c321 speedmasters came with the triangular bottom sweep second hand. The flat bottomed sweep second hand first appears with the '68 transitional, not with the 145.012.
     
  10. marturx Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    2,266
    Likes
    4,214
    Badly worn. Polished, homemade. Bad dial. Not a good specimen. The only thing I like with it, is the Tachy bezel.

    I feel that the hausse with Speedmasters has gone to far, when shitty pieces like this one is being considered as a good buy at USD 2900....
     
  11. dsio Ash @ ΩF Staff Member Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    26,748
    Likes
    32,465
    You certain about that? There are a lot of 145.012s with the flat bottom sweep hand including a few that would likely have to be original, the orange second hand 145.012s are flat bottom too.
     
  12. Darlinboy Pratts! Will I B******S!!! Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    8,727
    Likes
    69,007
    Condition of this one aside, I am not convinced that the flat bottomed sweep isn't ever correct on a 321, if that's what you are saying.

    There is no question that early (transitional) 821 have the applied Omega logo dial.

    Seems logical to me that "transition" can work both directions and therefore late production 321 examples could have easily used the flat sweep hand, if the triangle ones were depleted or out of stock.

    Unless...

    "Oops, no correct second hand, we'd better toss out this c321 movement, case, and dial..."
     
  13. Joe K. Curious about this text thingy below his avatar Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    1,647
    Likes
    2,099
    I would agree with this assessment.

     
  14. Joe K. Curious about this text thingy below his avatar Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    1,647
    Likes
    2,099
    I would agree that it has gone too far, but that appears to be the current market trend. Time will tell....

     
  15. SpikiSpikester @ ΩF Staff Member Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    3,185
    Likes
    3,774
    The box and papers add a bit of value and the 1450 bracelet adds a few hundred too. At UK prices it seems ok for a good condition example with these extras.

    That said, personally I'd walk away from it because the case looks badly polished. The lugs and case back are horrible.
     
  16. Pahawi Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    1,150
    Likes
    3,360
  17. Pahawi Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    1,150
    Likes
    3,360
    Maybe you're right it's too bad. I have two week to return it, though, so other than the shipping cost, and hassle, it's not the end of the world........
     
  18. SpikiSpikester @ ΩF Staff Member Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    3,185
    Likes
    3,774
    Maybe he'll sell you the 1450 for a decent price ? It's a very comfortable bracelet :)
     
    Pahawi likes this.
  19. Buck2466 Apr 7, 2014

    Posts
    1,174
    Likes
    7,584
    The flat bottomed sweep second actually started in the middle of the 67's and either one is accepted for 67's. By 68 the flat bottomed was the only accepted one as it was transitioned during the 67's, so it is the correct one. I have the same exact reference as the watch above. The 145.012-68 above has to have the highest cal. 321 serial # I have ever seen. It is a lot higher than mine which I mentioned in another thread a week or so back. My serial # is 26553XXX. I've seen a lot of threads around the net where there is mention that this reference was possibly the one that Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins wore on the first moon landing.
     
  20. rolexfantastic Apr 11, 2014

    Posts
    383
    Likes
    148
    Yes, one of the highest serials out there for a 321. It was probably delivered in 69.
    Even for that only, would be a great buy.

    105.012 and 145.012 both with 66 year ref.