Forums Latest Members

Misleading Speedmaster description - Exoticwatches.net

  1. Shazmak Oct 9, 2016

    Posts
    24
    Likes
    51
    I came across this listing for 1970 OMEGA 1st OWNER SPEEDMASTER MAN ON THE MOON BOX PAPERS 145.022 on Exotic Watches (http://www.exoticwatches.net/browse.asp?C=15&P=1) which is advertised as being 100% original and unmolested.

    About a week ago I sent the dealer a message about this so-called 100% original unmolested watch to point out that the serial indicates it is a pre-moon -69 which should have D090 bezel and pre-moon case back whereas this watch appears to have much later service replacements of both. Also the lume on the hands look odd to me but hard to tell in the photos.

    I got no response from the dealer and the listing description remains unchanged on the site. Does anyone else have experience with Exotic Watches? Are they in the habit of poorly researching their watches or misleading their potential customers? Buyer beware!
     
  2. BondJamesBond Oct 9, 2016

    Posts
    5
    Likes
    11
    I would personally never do business with any dealer/seller that's not prompt in replying to any of my inquires or questions-especially If I sense evasiveness or non-specificity. Important issues like you mention. I'd wait for the next opportunity or seek out other resources.
     
    Edited Oct 9, 2016
  3. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Oct 9, 2016

    Posts
    17,087
    Likes
    25,328
    IMG_4161.JPG

    I don't see the issue. Papers could indicate sold in 70. 69's brown, hands look correct to me.

    The bezel is modern though, caseback looks like a service replacement.
     
    BondJamesBond likes this.
  4. Shazmak Oct 9, 2016

    Posts
    24
    Likes
    51
    It's a 145.022-69, could be produced or sold in 1970. I have no issue with the 1970 stated. The issue is that it is described as 100% original and unmolested. Would you reasonably describe it as such with replacement bezel and caseback, which are not even correct for the reference? 2 of the main defining features of a -69 pre-moon Speedmaster?

    Im unsure of the hands but the lume looks very white and uneven, especially in the chrono hand. The bright white seems to bleed over the recess on the bottom left of the pointer.
     
    Edited Oct 10, 2016
    BondJamesBond likes this.
  5. oddboy Zero to Grail+2998 In Six Months Oct 9, 2016

    Posts
    9,217
    Likes
    23,880
    The new caseback is enough to put me off.

    Definitely seems like a bit of an overstatement calling it 100% original.
     
    Foo2rama and BondJamesBond like this.
  6. OmegaCal66 Oct 10, 2016

    Posts
    219
    Likes
    284
    All speedmasters on this site are invariably described this way. I would advise looking elsewhere unless you have oven gloves or like a gamble.
    In my experience don't buy anything from a description just stick to the photos.
     
  7. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Oct 10, 2016

    Posts
    17,087
    Likes
    25,328
    It's almost invariable that 145.022's are listed as all original, it does not take a massive amount of research to tell if it's all original or not. In the case of this watch it's clear the caseback and bezel are new.

    If your hunting all original 145.022-xx it's easy , bezel it's one of 2 and the DON is 1 year only. The hands are easy to eyeball to see if they look right. And there are 3 dials with clear years and easy to differentiate only 74 would be hard if your not really into it.
     
  8. abrod520 Oct 10, 2016

    Posts
    11,259
    Likes
    35,468
    I think distinguishing a 145.022-78 (or drop-S -76) from a 1980s 145.022 would be really difficult - I'm pretty sure I'd need to see the serial and caseback inscription to pull that off!
     
  9. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Oct 10, 2016

    Posts
    17,087
    Likes
    25,328
    I agree but you can eyeball it to see if it looks correct with ageing. The dials are indentical though. In your case let's be honest there is no way to confirm drop S dials are original only that lume matches patina and age.

    Logic states a non drop S on a 74 or 76 is correct, as well as step dials. But in the end even then there is no way to know.

    In the end you you can only make sure the parts are correct for the reference. All original is meaningless. Example my -76 which I thank you for selling me and you still retain dibs on.

    If I sourced a correct less patinaed Bezel and placed it on the watch and advertised as all original no one would question it.

    How many speedies running around have been corrected after being purchased with replacement hands or bezels? The price is the same once corrected as a watch marketed as all original and correct for the reference.

    I guess my point is as collectors we should view all original as meaningless. It's used on a large percentage of speedies for sale, unverifiable and not an modifier of value. I was being specific to the 145.022-xx watches as being relatively easy to authenticate as being correct parts to the standards that this board holds them too. I guess I did leave out checking serial and caseback which are stupidly easy and define what parts the rest of the watch should have.
     
    Edited Oct 10, 2016
    abrod520 likes this.