Forums Latest Members
  1. BatDad Mar 29, 2019

    Posts
    859
    Likes
    2,517
    March is always a happy time.

    For the forums review - my new ‘tropical’ Speedy 105.012.

    To my eyes -
    In pictures the dial looks shagged. On the wrist I find it a pleasing brown, with the plots equally distressed.
    I’m calling unpolished
    Crown too small - Flat foot looks original, Seamaster/Railmaster maybe?
    Service chrono hand.
    Original pushers and both reset to 12oclock.
    2453xxx serial - outside of Sp101 range for 105.012 just.

    Seems to hold time reasonably well - hoping to get it on a colleagues timegrapher soon which will no doubt tell me a service is due.

    What say we all?

    79A43E80-6EF4-4A24-8C2A-488BE158C6CA.jpeg 37401537-1833-4D2A-818D-C23A3155884B.jpeg 383D8E0F-8602-4B95-9A53-4BEF0DF8D5F0.jpeg 3F063313-3C25-465F-A10F-C10EDFCF1D9A.jpeg 350C7841-C70A-406F-ABE7-24D4A0F0CA71.jpeg 69201CDD-3AF8-4FAC-81B7-520FA1A0A4D7.jpeg DA6C8B89-7150-4514-8123-0E34C0FBF681.jpeg 4EAE436A-DE98-4CB2-AA91-1F8773012D42.jpeg 202746FB-E7E7-4002-8C0A-AF3B6507AA70.jpeg A57C151C-2261-4757-8CAA-76C257F116BC.jpeg
     
    0uss, gemini4 and CJpickup57 like this.
  2. BatDad Mar 29, 2019

    Posts
    859
    Likes
    2,517
    Hang on —- that case back says ‘63... hold fast folk - I’m going back to the seller...
     
  3. chronoboy64 Mar 29, 2019

    Posts
    1,441
    Likes
    11,944
    wow ::popcorn::
     
  4. nonuffinkbloke #1 Nigel Mansell Fan Mar 29, 2019

    Posts
    2,145
    Likes
    5,379
    Yes it does look like a 3, but your picture gets a bit blurry when expanded. Could it be just a badly stamped 5??? The 5 on my 105.012-65 has a flat top, and the 3 on the 105.012-63 picture below has a definite rounded top???::confused2::

    Your movement is correct for a 105.012-65. I also have a 2453 range 321 in my watch which is correct for a 105.012-65 (according to Moonwatch Only). For a 105.012-63 you'd be down in the 2052 Range (according to Speedmaster101) We have to remember that @Spacefruit adds notes to his charts which need to be taken into consideration when using them.
    (Here is a quote from the notes his serial reference page on Speedmaster101)
    "These are based on known watches observed, and other sources including MWO. This source has confirmed some of my onservations and refines others, and they do quote more accurate figures. I urge you to buy the book."

    386235-d1016b5acec7df98e46ea9ed31ecf179.jpg

    Also you don't have a symmetrical clutch bridge on your 321 movement.
    (Quote from SPEEDMASTER101) The -63 also carries the “symmetrical” clutch bridge, where as subsequent 105.012’s have the asymmetrical bridge that all later 321s carry.
    173886-aa7e1f6166b191818f220f6697b7d3af-1.jpg

    Here is a shot of my case back (lower photo) and a 105.012-63 case back (upper photo) for comparison.
    IMG_3365.jpg
    IMG_0078.JPG
     
    Edited Mar 30, 2019
    ext1, Spacefruit, gemini4 and 3 others like this.
  5. OWa Mar 30, 2019

    Posts
    332
    Likes
    777
    For me it also looks like a 65. Do you have a chance to take a better picture?
     
    BatDad likes this.
  6. BatDad Mar 30, 2019

    Posts
    859
    Likes
    2,517
    Fire drill averted. Had a closer look through the loupe.

    Lume faded but still on plots. DE425093-28AA-49DB-846B-73EEFD1BFF66.jpeg 07A84192-3F0C-4E36-947A-A774AD275A65.jpeg
     
    0uss, ATWG, gemini4 and 2 others like this.
  7. BatDad Mar 30, 2019

    Posts
    859
    Likes
    2,517
    @nonuffinkbloke thanks for digging that out of MWO. I’m really happy to hear it’s in the range. (My copy is in a packing box somewhere! )

    I’d noticed the 63 ranges were way off and was thinking perhaps the case back had been switched. Pleased to see I was mistaken!
     
    nonuffinkbloke and CJpickup57 like this.
  8. nonuffinkbloke #1 Nigel Mansell Fan Mar 30, 2019

    Posts
    2,145
    Likes
    5,379
    Yes I'm pleased for you that it's all turned out OK. Would have been unfortunate if you had a -63 case back.

    The item in Speedmaster101 on reference 321 'clutch bridges' 105.012 is also interesting because it makes the distinction between symmetrical, on the -63 and asymmetrical, On the -64 -65 & -66. Your asymmetrical clutch bridge, plus the 2453 serial are all correct.
    So... Thank Heaven!... panic over! :)
     
    Edited Mar 30, 2019
  9. BatDad Mar 30, 2019

    Posts
    859
    Likes
    2,517
    Great call on the clutch - that’s about the only thing I know what to look for on a 321 movement.

    Hypothetical if - presumably I wouldnt have had much trouble shifting a 63 case back. The pita would have been finding another 65 012.
     
    Edited Mar 31, 2019
    nonuffinkbloke likes this.
  10. gemini4 Hoarder Of Speed et alia Mar 30, 2019

    Posts
    5,855
    Likes
    16,580
    I have numerous examples of 2052xxxx movements, in both 105.012-63s and105.002-62s, with asymmetrical bridges. My experience is that symmetrical bridges were prevalent south of movement number 20 million.

    Edit: 105.003-63s as well
     
    Edited Mar 30, 2019
    nonuffinkbloke, kov, ext1 and 3 others like this.
  11. Spacefruit Prolific Speedmaster Hoarder Mar 30, 2019

    Posts
    5,191
    Likes
    22,934
    On the subject of asymmetric vs symmetric bridges I added this note some while ago:

    Note as of September 2017: I have now seen a few 105.012-63 with an asymmetric bridge. I think I have to accept that either is correct. From a collectors point of view, the symmetric bridge is more interesting, but I would doubt it would affect the value.

    http://speedmaster101.com/105-012/
     
  12. Screwbacks Mar 30, 2019

    Posts
    1,682
    Likes
    4,857
    is that really neil's speedy box?
     
    Edited Mar 30, 2019
  13. nonuffinkbloke #1 Nigel Mansell Fan Mar 31, 2019

    Posts
    2,145
    Likes
    5,379
    Ahhh! Thankyou William.... I didn't see that???::shy:: I shall go to the pub, get on WiFi and investigate.:thumbsup: Just as a matter of interest... with the clutch bridge sitting, easily accessible, up on the top of the 321 movement, Isn't it an easy part to swap over without dismantling the movement? And if so, is there any reason to suspect that those asymmetric bridges you've seen on a -63 are not original? Or is it more likely to have been a parts overlap late in the serial range?
     
  14. gemini4 Hoarder Of Speed et alia Mar 31, 2019

    Posts
    5,855
    Likes
    16,580
    @nonuffinkbloke, go to the pub and relax. We are all good here.
    MWO, Edition 2
    536E2C2C-17CF-4EEB-A68D-F0CB363F1E72.jpeg
     
    nonuffinkbloke and BatDad like this.
  15. Spacefruit Prolific Speedmaster Hoarder Mar 31, 2019

    Posts
    5,191
    Likes
    22,934
    I think he might have been going to the pub anyway.....
     
    nonuffinkbloke and BatDad like this.
  16. Spacefruit Prolific Speedmaster Hoarder Mar 31, 2019

    Posts
    5,191
    Likes
    22,934
    Yes
     
  17. nonuffinkbloke #1 Nigel Mansell Fan Mar 31, 2019

    Posts
    2,145
    Likes
    5,379
    Yes I did have it in mind, thankyou. As soon as I've dropped Mrs Bloke off at her Spanish language church for a bit of Latina Holy fellowship. I shall go to my Appropriately named Local.::shy::
    44640386011_86afce5f61_b.jpg