- Posts
- 243
- Likes
- 751
Is This MoonWatch Original?
- Posts
- 907
- Likes
- 1,295
mancio
·But, is that even the same watch? (first and second picture)😕
- Posts
- 4,106
- Likes
- 16,315
- Posts
- 432
- Likes
- 334
new_heuer
·Not the same watch!
- Posts
- 1,441
- Likes
- 3,809
killer67
·4,4M would make this an early 80s watch which would not have a step dial. So the dial is not correct for the serial (or any factory serial really). Bezel, crown, inner case back appear incorrect as well
- Posts
- 24
- Likes
- 31
SCARRION
·Thé serial of the movement is not the same on the case lug.
- Posts
- 243
- Likes
- 751
SurvivingJoe
·The Seller confirmed the 1st pic is from another watch. And I didn't attached all pics since too manh.
From the S/N this watch should be 90s, and how to justify the Bezel/crown/inner case back is incorrect?
I now attach the rest pictures here which claimed from same one:
Delete the wrong picture to avoid confusion.
From the S/N this watch should be 90s, and how to justify the Bezel/crown/inner case back is incorrect?
I now attach the rest pictures here which claimed from same one:
Delete the wrong picture to avoid confusion.
Edited:
- Posts
- 243
- Likes
- 751
SurvivingJoe
·Looking at the bezels at 110 and the 11 o'clock markers, it again doesn't seem to be the same watch.
Even image names and resolutions are different:
idlefish-msg-1585475576024-jpg (1200 x 900)
388198763159505-jpg (1080 x 1440)
- Posts
- 243
- Likes
- 751
SurvivingJoe
·
Thanks, Is that because the dial looks a step one? What's the clue about "Bezel, crown, inner case back appear incorrect as well"?
- Posts
- 243
- Likes
- 751
SurvivingJoe
·Bezel: In the second pic there's clearly a polished dent near 110.
11 o'clock index: In the first pic some tritium is missing IMO.
- Posts
- 2,844
- Likes
- 2,439
- Posts
- 6,911
- Likes
- 12,718
SpeedyPhill
·Nothing enhances knowledge like experience 😉
- Posts
- 243
- Likes
- 751
SurvivingJoe
·Recently someone mentioned the length of R in "Professionally" makes some difference, anyone aware of this Diff?
- Posts
- 243
- Likes
- 751
SurvivingJoe
·Nothing enhances knowledge like experience 😉
- Posts
- 905
- Likes
- 2,488
JanV
·So the last picture is definitely from another watch again, just check the ‘ marker above Tachymetre on the last picture. First picture of the 80’ies Speedy is missing this. Why do we see pictures of different watches on every post so far... Either buyer beware, or there’s something 😕 going on here...
- Posts
- 243
- Likes
- 751
SurvivingJoe
·So the last picture is definitely from another watch again, just check the ‘ marker above Tachymetre on the last picture. First picture of the 80’ies Speedy is missing this. Why do we see pictures of different watches on every post so far... Either buyer beware, or there’s something 😕 going on here...
. Forgive the unprofessional seller.So I summary current status is:
1. The target item is a 80~90s 145.022, I'll get the clear pic of movement tomorrow to confirm the S/N
2. It does not have a step Dial
3. While Some experts mentioned the Bezel/Crown/inner case back may be incorrect, any further detail about the suspetion so I can request more details?
- Posts
- 4,106
- Likes
- 16,315
kov
·Thé serial of the movement is not the same on the case lug.
At the first glance, I would say you’re right but I think you aren’t.
It’s easy to mistake and think that this serial is not 48 millions here but chances are very low that we have only one different digit on these pictures.
4_277243 are quite clearly visible.
But that serial is more likely to be correct so the dial is fine too, per consequence 😉
I agree on the bezel and caseback but how can you be sure about the crown?
- Posts
- 4,106
- Likes
- 16,315
kov
·1. The target item is a 80~90s 145.022
This Speedmaster is a 3590.50 produced somewhen in 1991. For sure not in the eighties. And it is not supposed to have a step dial 😉
- Posts
- 243
- Likes
- 751
SurvivingJoe
·This Speedmaster is a 3590.50 produced somewhen in 1991. For sure not in the eighties. And it is not supposed to have a step dial
How to tell the wrong bezel and caseback to justify it's a 3590.50? Due to the S/N range?
- Posts
- 4,106
- Likes
- 16,315
kov
·It does not have a step dial as I clarified the wrong pictures🤦.
Delete that first picture and you won’t confuse people with it anymore
How to tell the wrong bezel and caseback to justify it's a 3590.50?
Based on that serial / period you can securely assume it’s a 3590.50. All the other comments are based on that assumption. I would expect to see a different bezel and a different caseback on this watch to say it’s all original. Now you have all the details to make your homework and find out 😀
