Monochrome on early Speedmasters

did anyone read this article?

http://monochrome-watches.com/omega-speedmaster-history-part-1-early-pre-moons/

fun and interesting of course, but we are nitpickers in here right.... ...I can see some things that I am not sure they are correct?


1) "We had the chance to handle the watches from the Omega Museum (that were presented in the Parisian Boutique During a special event), all colorfully original"

... sad if this 2998 is from the Omega Museum, somebody slapped main hands from a Seamaster on it, way too short, subdial hands should be white, and chrono second as well, has replacement tachy too....



2) "The 105.003 is one of the two references Chosen by NASA for the astronauts' equipment. It was discontinued in 1966 and Replaced by the reference 145003, The Last of the 'straight lugs.'"

uh?..., 145.003´s are rarer than a dodo, replacing nothing, certainly never sat on a NASA astronaut's hand. ... plenty of 105.012 and 145.012 have though


3) "in 1962 presented the Omega Speedmaster ref. 105,002 and in 1963 the Speedmaster 105,003. Both have a similar design, however with one (minor) technical difference. The diameter of the bezel has been Enlarged from 38.6mm to 39.7mm between These two references. "

Nah, the diameter change from 38.6 to 39.7 came with the change from metal (2915-1, 2915-2) to black (2915-3, BASE1000) all black manual Speedmaster Pro has since had 39.7

4th) on 105 002 vs 105 003: "For the Rest of Their characteristics, though, These are Essentially the same watch."

Nah, what's fun with the 105,002 is that it is basically a 2998 with "new" Mapics code name, with the stunning Alpha-hands! ... then came the transition to straight white hands during the 105,002 of production, but the inner ring is metal on all 105 002 I think?, which gives a completely different look than 105.003, so the .002 is a transitional reference if there ever was one! I would rather draw the line of generations between 105.002 and 105.003 than between 2998 and 105.002 if it has to be drawn?

....but I could of course be wrong and there could be other thoughts?

cheers. 😉

Looks like somebody at Moanachrome decided to be an expert on Moonwatches after swilling too much Moonshine!

Hi Niklas,

you are right, Museum´s pieces are not as good as collectors'

2) 105.003 was renamed 145.003 by Omega in Summer 1967, although their cases kept old 105.003 engraving. In the archives, for an unknown reason, some produced after mid-67 still kept reference 105.003, but this refers to identical watches.

4) pushers' size is also different

thanks for that. always learn so much from this place!!!

It's often that the case that the collectors know about the watches than the so-called boutique!

In the mind of collectors, the more hardcore collectors, would want everything original, from the day it left the factory, and even if severely patinaed and spotted they call that tropical and would want to keep it. NASA is different, the watch is a tool, not collector's item. Valid points you made.

To those who demands absolute original specimen, great, good on you, but for others, we enjoy our watches in our own ways. It's good at forums to learn about what watches should be like, and to learn about fake ones, and to have other "experts" cast their eyes and give their opinions.

I think we all have our own tolerance as to how original the watch(es) we have retain original parts. In the end, the owner is the one deriving the enjoyment from the timepiece, not the critics.

Anyway, have lurked here a bit and enjoyed and learnt a lot. Hope this will continue to be a great place to meet and learn ! 😀