Forums Latest Members
  1. DogmaT Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    5
    Hello Everyone,

    I am a newcomer but have been searching for a while for a vintage speedmaster.
    Recently I found below 105.012, from '64 to '66 I presume based on its characteristics: DON, close T Swiss T. Although bezel and dial somewhat damaged over the years.
    But what about the dial, hands and the movement?
    Your insights are really appreciated.
    Cheers Tom
     
    Capture.PNG1.PNG Capture.PNG2.PNG Capture.PNG3.PNG Capture.PNG4.PNG Capture.PNG5.PNG Capture.PNG6.PNG IMG_1075.JPG IMG_1086.JPG
  2. Screwbacks Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    1,682
    Likes
    4,857
    is this still under negotiation? or purchased already.

    looks like legit to me. some characters like broken indexis are inherent of watch aging.
     
  3. DogmaT Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    5
    Reserved, waiting for extract of archives. Just wondering whether the damages in the inner side of the lugs are normal?
     
  4. Dash1 Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    1,825
    Likes
    3,502
    Well it’s not normal. Most probably a poor attempt at removing the bracelet in the past. At least you can’t see the marks when wearing the watch, you just need to ask yourself if it bothers you or not.
     
  5. ATWG Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    2,055
    Likes
    6,192
    Hi Tom -as you point out, the dial is not perfect with lume loss and possibly scratches in the sub register. The hands look correct. The case is also correct for a -65 HF, but has been polished. The pushers also appear to be original fat neck. The crown is a later replacement. Lastly, the movement serial is also correct and appears to be clean.

    The damage to the inner lugs wouldn’t bother me on this watch, the value is in the dial and bezel and therefore price should be appropriately adjusted.

    Good luck.

    -A
     
    DogmaT and MaiLollo like this.
  6. DogmaT Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    5
    Thanks so far guys!

    @abrod520
    @t_swiss_t
    @Foo2rama
    @oddboy

    I noted your feedback in one of the previous discussion regarding the dials of a 105012.
    What is your view on this? To me the wording of 'professional' is a bit suspect in relation to the Omega logo and Speedmaster wording.
    The Omega and Speedmaster format refers to early 105012, while the professional text refers more to late 105012's, e.g. de spacing between the two S's and middle bar 'E', agree?
     
  7. ATWG Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    2,055
    Likes
    6,192
    You can conduct more research on Speedmaster101.com, both close and wide T's are acceptable for this reference.
     
    Foo2rama likes this.
  8. stefman Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    384
    Likes
    686
    I don’t have much knowledge, so I’ll only comment on what I know. The crown is a replacement crown and not accurate to this model.
     
  9. Dan S Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    18,812
    Likes
    43,263
    So you think the dial is fake?
     
  10. abrod520 Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    11,262
    Likes
    35,476
    Looks like it has correct parts and movement range for a 105.012-65 to me, the crown may not be a replacement - it's a 32-tooth wide logo crown which did appear on models in this era (though the exact range would have to be confirmed via MWO which I don't have with me at my office). Hands, maybe relumed? But they match and look fine to me. The lug scratches are odd but shouldn't cause trouble with the springbar fitment, though I'd still have a watchmaker look into it.
     
    Foo2rama and DogmaT like this.
  11. Davidt Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    10,421
    Likes
    18,126
    I'm in the middle of conducting some research into late 60's Speedmaster crowns and I'm pretty confident this crown was never original to this ref.
     
    nonuffinkbloke likes this.
  12. DogmaT Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    5
    Thanks. I already checked various websites like speedmaster101, Fratello Watches and MWO. The dial remains questionable for me. perhaps a service replacement.
     
  13. DogmaT Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    5
    The dial of the watch should be the one below..wording professional not in line from my perspective..
     
    Capture.PNG7.PNG
  14. Dan S Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    18,812
    Likes
    43,263
    Your watch is the top one, with the oval "O"s, right? Where did you find the lower one with the round "O"s and the funny "S"?
     
  15. DogmaT Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    5
    Hi Dan, I hope not;) not sure unfortunately..
     
  16. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    17,105
    Likes
    25,350
    I’m not seeing a dial font issue. It’s not a service dial. As seen by the narrow T’s.

    Pre 1969 the “service dial” would be regular production. Post 1969 when there was service dials this dial does not have the hallmarks of one.

    The only service dials that exist are post 1969 321 dials. There are no 861 service contrary to some people’s thinking. ( yes I know this is a 321)
     
  17. Dan S Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    18,812
    Likes
    43,263
    I think the OP may be making comparisons with the wrong dial. His post showing two dials above each other is confusing to me. It's not clear from his comments which dial is his, and which he thinks is correct.
     
    Foo2rama likes this.
  18. DogmaT Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    5
  19. Dan S Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    18,812
    Likes
    43,263
  20. DogmaT Apr 11, 2019

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    5
    I am sorry Dan, when opening the link, please have a look at the end where you can find the inscription. Cheers