Community Stories

My new 145.012. 2nd vintage Speedmaster. I think they call this a “full set”

ac106
Posts
999
Likes
1,678
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:

45E46876-2155-4282-8D3A-975D41BE3611.jpeg 17CDB4BF-2F46-4968-814F-A04E61F23DFE.jpeg 1188DE42-A7E9-4E5A-82D4-BE6471E851A3.jpeg 73F5F483-8B7E-4795-A31D-0D69134F80A7.jpeg 56D60D33-BF96-4E14-9826-2A6A758DC13C.jpeg EBB25EC4-D3FA-4FC0-877F-8A5888AE2CB5.jpeg 6FA9DAA1-A04B-4EAE-BD0C-AE0485308F39.jpeg FCC509C2-D284-438A-9600-DC7655231331.jpeg
 
98F141B1-001C-4436-9395-45A2B508C4DC.jpeg F05EC97E-3753-4EAE-A90C-FC515FAC8A52.jpeg
MikiJ
Posts
2,844
Likes
2,438
Stunning! Tell me it's another 145.012-68 with a flat bottom chrono hand. Check this out and you'll understand:

Fathers Watch
 
Dan S
Posts
23,447
Likes
52,101
Very nice, congratulations. And interesting to see how the lume on hands and dial has aged differentially on this one-owner piece.
 
ndgal
Posts
2,314
Likes
5,693
Dan S Dan S
Very nice, congratulations. And interesting to see how the lume on hands and dial has aged differentially on this one-owner piece.
Looks like most of the Lume has flaked off the dail.
 
Dan S
Posts
23,447
Likes
52,101
ndgal ndgal
Looks like most of the Lume has flaked off the dail.

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.
 
stefman
Posts
384
Likes
686
Wow! So nice and it looks great! Big congrats on the catch!
 
Tempus
Posts
479
Likes
857
Even with price sticker intact! Wonderful set, enjoy.
 
padders
Posts
10,305
Likes
16,126
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.
 
ac106
Posts
999
Likes
1,678
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
 
gemini4
Posts
5,860
Likes
16,788
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!
 
MikiJ
Posts
2,844
Likes
2,438
@gemini4 What is your very considered opinion regarding flat or tear-drop chrono hands on a 145.012-68?
 
29 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...