Dear wise men and forum gods!

I am new here and hope my first post is not too profane, but I got a few questions which I haven't been able to research on my own.
I recently saw a Speedmaster on a friend's wrist and loved the watch so much that I have spent at least a couple of days worth of research on this forum and other sites. The subject of vintage speedies seems to be a real mine field and I don't dare yet spending any large amount of money on one, so I gonna stick with something safer for now, like a 3590 I saw at a dealer I trust!

Still, curiosity got the better of me and I also started looking for more proper vintage and came across a 145.022 on the bay, which I have no intention to buy as there are a few red flags and incongruities.

I asked the seller to send me an additional photo of the inside of the case back, which I find has an odd composition:
145.022
ST 71
Instead of 145.022-71 ST

The image below is the outside of the case back from the ebay listing.

May be it means nothing, but I have never seen the 'two liner' number arrangement on any of the many available google images.

This possible red flag ties in with another peculiarity of this watch:

The serial number is 32.897.XXX as confirmed on the archive excerpt - the archive paper dates the watch to January 9th 1975, which would go better with a 145.022-74 case back, not -71.

However, the watch also has a stepped dial, which I believe could perhaps still have slipped into a January 75 example, yes?, no?, but would go much better with the 71 case back.

So my questions are:
-is this case back legit, or is it a replacement or even fake?
or
-does the watch have a replaced movement, as case back, dial and bezel all seem correct for a 71 model?
or
-is was this watch indeed born like this, but it's parts may have stewed separately before finally being assembled for sale by Omega?

-how far off from the archive dating is the case back dating allowed to be? In the case here it has jumped across the entire -74 period.

I guess it is easier if I post the ebay link too:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/182225394...7674a920d2e&bu=43138245413&cp=1&sojTags=bu=buPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

Thank you all!
Meow

 

There are a few different 71 casebacks, I have one just like the one in the pic and another with the more usual swirl background, they're both legit.
Useful reading here too:
https://omegaforums.net/threads/is-this-a-valid-71-st-caseback.37818/

 

This is my favorite, the 145.022-71 "No Inscription" Caseback.

 

Not as glamorous as gemini4's, but might be useful for future reference. I was spurred on by this thread to check the ones I have again, I actually have more variations than I remembered

 

January 1975 is fine for a -71 as they were made until the caseback supply ran out, even concurrently with -74s.

As previously said though, I'm more concerned about the fact that the movement shot and caseback shot appear to be of two different watches.

 

It's not just the endlinks - the whole bracelet is a different model.

 

Hi... thanks for all your answers so far, and kudos to dsio for his eagle eyes!
The ebay listing shows the bracelet clasp marked 1171/633 and in the German text it says that this original band was added a year ago. I would guess the photo with the 633 endlinks was taken earlier, and the watch now has a 1171/633 bracelet, but with aftermarket endlinks, ja?

I already learned valuable information from you guys today - thank you very much!
- grow some eagle eyes!
-different case back numbering
-accepted discrepancies between case back date and archive paper (71 case back and 1/75 archive date)
- use eagle eyes!

What do you think about the whole package? I must say I do like the dial with the green'ish markers.

 

Interesting that the extract shows a 1039/516 bracelet provided in 75. I have seen before stated that 1039/516 was only produced up to 72.
Is bracelet information in extracts to be trusted?
If you get this watch I would reunite it with the correct bracelet.

 

Could be that they were still using up stocks of bracelets, but it certainly is strange to see a 1975 production paired with a 1039. Still, the Extract is of the modern, more accurate type so I'd tend to believe them unless convinced otherwise

 

A few years ago, when asking for an extract, it was possible to add info like bracelet, or so. I don't know when this practice stopped, but that's maybe the origin of the 1039 information. On the other hand, Omega did probably still have some 1039 stock in 1975 and put one on this watch.
The problem is that this watch is not sold with the 1039...
About the watch, I think that the watch got too many more shocks than the bezel... bezel has been probably changed.
About the whole package, I saw 145.022 71 better than this for half of the price 2 years ago... but that was 2 years ago.
About the box... '80ies ?!
This one looks like a "soft" franken with polished case, replacement bezel, recent 1171/1/633 (why not an old one or a 1039) and on top of it a box that is not time correct.
To me price would be correct if unpolished, original bezel and original 1039.