Non-transitional 145.022-68 ST

Posts
12
Likes
7
Hi, I have a question about a watch I recently purchased. It is a 145.022-68 ST, but it is not a transitional dial. The serial number dates to 1968 as well. I haven’t seen any others like this, is this a weird one made on the cusp of 1969, or am I overlooking something?
 
Posts
13,203
Likes
22,964
The obvious answer is either the dial or caseback have been swapped

what’s the serial no?
 
Posts
5,317
Likes
24,330
It is improbable that this is original, as David points out.

the Important thing to keep in mind is that this watch is worth less than an original -69.

And even less valuable than a -68

….and don’t kid yourself about finding an original AML 861 dial. I think I have only ever seen one for sale
 
Posts
24,263
Likes
54,032
Based on the listing photos, the case-back is very badly over polished as well. I can't even see the engraving. And obviously the bezel is pretty rough. I hope you didn't pay much for it.
 
Posts
2,515
Likes
5,544
Hi there, the one you found (but not bought) on Liveauctioneer had a hefty price (even if it was a year ago...), don't you think?
And they wrote serial nr 42 mil - that can't be correct?
Erhhmm... this one sold before seems to also be a weird one?
 
Posts
12
Likes
7
Thanks everyone for your feedback. The serial on this one is 27,325,662. I spoke to the shop and they are very understanding. Their master watchmaker seems quite certain the dial is original based on a number of factors, including the patina, the position and impression of the feet, etc. I am, however, still not certain. I have found a couple other examples of non transition dials in this reference, but they are a little weird. I’m posting another example from 1st dibs as a photo in this post. I also consulted a Speedmaster collector who believes as many here do it should be a transition dial.
Edited:
 
Posts
1,976
Likes
9,456
It is an original dial. It is not the original dial for this watch.
 
Posts
24,263
Likes
54,032
Thanks everyone for your feedback. The serial on this one is 27,325,662. I spoke to the shop and they are very understanding. Their master watchmaker seems quite certain the dial is original based on a number of factors, including the patina, the position and impression of the feet, etc. I am, however, still not certain. I have found a couple other examples of non transition dials in this reference, but they are a little weird. I’m posting another example from 1st dibs as a photo in this post. I also consulted a Speedmaster collector who believes as many here do it should be a transition dial. The shop would swap the Speedmaster for this 1966 Navitimer if I’d like to, and I’m considering that option: https://fathertimeantiques.com/item.php?item_id=1626&start=0&criteria=^0^0^0^4

This is total gibberish. Of course it's an original dial for a cal 861 reference 145-022-69 or -71, so the feet are in the right position and the age is as expected. It doesn't matter if you find a half dozen examples with swapped dials or replaced case-backs, it will never be correct. Don't exchange anything, just get your money back for the frankenwatch they sold you.
 
Posts
13,203
Likes
22,964
Agree. You can find all sorts of weird combinations if you look hard enough. With the caseback and serial im this is simply a -68 where someone has swapped out a -69 dial.
 
Posts
6,194
Likes
21,200
You'd also be over-paying about 2k for that Breitling.
 
Posts
2,515
Likes
5,544
@Lowghost, I urge you to read and look at the links I shared before...

You're gonna get roasted big time here...😉
I know the feeling....🤔
 
Posts
521
Likes
410
….and don’t kid yourself about finding an original AML 861 dial. I think I have only ever seen one for sale
it took me 4+ yrs to find one, out of portugal... stripped of lume.

and it wasn't cheap