Just bought this from the original owner who is the nicest guy imaginable. I think I paid a fair price for both of us His kid didn’t want it. I don’t quite understand that but I can’t say that I’m upset about it Here are the pics:
Stunning! Tell me it's another 145.012-68 with a flat bottom chrono hand. Check this out and you'll understand: Fathers Watch
Very nice, congratulations. And interesting to see how the lume on hands and dial has aged differentially on this one-owner piece.
Yes, agreed. But I was noticing that the remaining lume (e.g. at 12) is substantially lighter than on the hands (see the first photo from the second post). As you know, this differential aging is often a topic of discussion on the forum.
That’ll probably be a 145.012-67 so no not a transitional. The serial and delivery date are too early for a 145.012-68 in my opinion. -68s seem to have been rolled out from about October 1968. I think both hand styles are considered correct.
Heya all It’s a 145.012-67 Lighting was bad when I took pics. Lume is a little better in person. I’ll try to get some better pics in natural light today
Great find indeed. And very interesting and informative to me. If presumed “all original”, it shows an early 145.012-67, approx February 1968 production, with the newer chrono hand and crown. 145.012-67 are generally seen in two movement number ranges. 2607Xxxxx (April - August 1968 production) the largest group and 2500xxxx the earliest. Also a bit of 265xxxxx (October 1968 production, my latest example) just before the 145.012-68 kicked in (November 1968 for mine). Well done!
@gemini4 What is your very considered opinion regarding flat or tear-drop chrono hands on a 145.012-68?