I’ve got two DON bezels, one from a 105.012 and the other from a 145.022. Side by side I’ve noticed that my 105 bezel’s font is slightly thicker and not as crisp. Has anyone else noticed differences in there DONs? Is this just age and patina doing its thing?

Also, which DON do you think is more desirable? They are both in great condition with their own imperfections. The 105 has a slight fade to it with slight surface scratches when looking from side lit angles and the 145 has the crisp font, shiny black insert with no scratches but the outer meta ring has slight tiny surface dings I’ll call them. Which one, left or right?

Thanks in advance.

 

Here’s a shot of the 105 in the sun so you can see the fade.

 

They both look great but I would go with the one on the left, that's closer to a mint DON than the one on the right.

 

There does seem to be some differences in font thickness and how close to the edge on DON’s but so far it’s put down to differences in batches. Some years apparently have a different ink that can go blue around 67-68. As of yet no one has gone into that much detail on them or done a comprehensive survey.

 

Also noticed similar differences between earlier/later DONs on the few watches I have. As Foo says, how close to the edge the text is what jumps out to me, and this I believe is ‘later’ (disclaimer: my belief, not guaranteed fact, so might be total bollocks). But so many older watches have had bezels swapped out for better condition ones, one would need to have all original watches to characterize.

 

Paging @airansun ...

 

Yeah, I noticed this thread.

And, I’ve noticed some of these differences myself. I need to take some macro photos of some of my DON bezels to compare and post. I’ve actually been wanting to do that for some time.

Maybe this weekend...

Here’s a teaser:
Some DON bezels I picked up in the past year, along with one I took off a watch. (One or both are already on watches now, so don’t get excited.)




The two middle ones look like a skinnier font than the first and last. (I’m looking at the 9 in 90.] Notice how the first and last also seem to have serifs on top of the ‘1’ for ‘100’.

This is obviously right, but given how easily bezels are swapped, I’m not sure we’ll ever know for absolute sure, unless Omega’s business archives yield photos from suppliers, pre orders and sample bezels from the years in question.

I’ll do a better job this weekend!

 

There's been a brief discussion on this before, but there are definitely variations with regard to the crispness of the font.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/do90-bezel-comparison-on-2998s.25770/

 

See, coming from a coin collecting world, I’m used to seeing much made out of small variations.

Another one that pulls at me are the font and position changes of the writing on the 321 movements.

Both of these are from Ed Whites that were made in the second half of 1967. (Clearly, these bridges can get replaced during a service.)


The smaller font comes from the older watch, which seems consistent with my anecdotal observations. Curling the ‘Swiss’ around the screwhead instead of the bridge end appears quite rare.

Here are some more, all from different watches. Sorry not all are well focused.



Looks like there are three types, but I need to study this more.

What is the point of collecting all these fine watches if not to study them!

 

I do not think this has been discussed before. Some bezels seem to have been produced with the printing and dots slightly off center. The result being, clipped numbers and dots. Usually this clipping is seen on the inner edge of the bezel. I can't find any examples right now. My question is, do es anyone think this affects the value or desirability of the bezel?.

 

I started doing that on dials for -74 and -76 and got some wierd pushback. When you start to see a trend and something is now found to not be correct at least 1 person with a vested interest can get upset.

 

...and fascinating to discover the font and type position variations on the movements. Looking forward to seeing how these studies play out...

 

Glad to hear that I’m not crazy and that these diffs actually exist. Do we think the serief thicker fonts are more period correct for eh 105? I believe both bezels are original to each watch. I’m 100% confident on the 145.022-69 as it got it from a safe and original owner they never serviced it.

My next question is, should I swap the bezel for the crispy cleaner looked example on my 105? I don’t plan on keeping the 145 and each bezel has its own slight issues but both in great condtion.

I’m inclined to leave it as is to avoid a risky operation and killing the originality. Also, the faded bezel on the 105 May turn out to be lovely as it ghosts. Thoughts on the swap?

 

First, I don’t think it’s going to be as easy as anything like ‘early - skinny, later - thick’. The bezel were supplied in batches, like the cases. Slight differences will appear, both from run to run, as well as within each run (as the process that imprints each bezel no doubt wears over a run, creating inconsistencies).

So, this will be a curiosity at best, unless Omega records yield concrete information.

Second, I’m opposed to using this as another issue to agonize over. There’s probably no single item on old Speedmasters that has had ‘musical chairs’ run on them as much as bezels.

These old watches are like us; they accumulate scars and replacement parts too.

 

Fair enough, I'm sure its a minefield and there probably isn't any rhyme or reason to it either.

So the million dollar question is, is it worth swapping between the two pieces or should leave as is?

 

I wouldn’t.

First, I’ve never taken a nice bezel off a watch only to replace it with a crummy one; all my bezel moves have been to improve each watch. So, for example, I will not pull the nearly perfect bezel off my 145.012-67 in order to improve one of my other, rarer watches.



Second, I’m not crazy about changing stuff on vintage watches unless there’s a very good reason, like something is broken or something is impairing my enjoyment of the watch. I’m not looking to maximize the value of my watches or use them to make money. To the extent I can, I want to leave them as I found them, service and replacing broken pieces excepted.

I do worry that with all the messing around we do, we are collectively destroying any historical value that the ‘untouched’ watches have - i.e., how much of the watch actually came from the factory with the movement?

But, this is just my opinion.

 

Just remember a watch serviced before 69 would get a new DON bezel.