old speedmaster ck2998-62

OMEGuy

Hello and welcome @ginge : Apart from the wrong pusher, the watch looks completely legit and beautiful to me. In this condition, it's a rare find nowadays.

Please don't sell it. Wear it.

G ginge

my dad said he rembers asking when he bought it new why one pusher was larger dont suppose will ever know if shop done something etc as he never sent it to be fixed he said and a long time now

OMEGuy

This pusher is supposed to be correct for a Speedy Pro. I can't imagine any circumstances that this watch left the factory like this. But it's no issue to have the pusher swapped.

bigsom

Regarding the radium in later 2998s. I've seen several 2998-6x watches with radium dials and matching radium hands. I think there may be significant lume variability in the later 2998s.

Here's one - http://www.db1983.com/our-archive/omega-speedmaster-ck-2998-61-1963

Also my own 2998 is several hundred off from the Davidoff Brothers example and also has radium dial and hands.

OMEGuy

Beautiful watch...

mr_yossarian

Hey! Time for reaping cheap likes, especially for doubtful members?
Oh, Beautiful watch...,

Patrik83

Time to stop the bullying of @OMEGuy, it does not add value to any thread.

@ginge Looks great, besides the reset pusher that is. You should try to find a old pusher to mach the other smaller one and have that installed during a service. Would love to see it in proper light.

mr_yossarian

Really nice of you, but not appropriate. Do your homework first, then interfere if necessary. Thank you

Spacefruit

Honestly, based on what?

these are terrible photos upon which to make any judgement. We can see that the h/m hands look interesting triangle lume vintage examples.
Apart from that we have some really blurry photos - we can’t see the colour of the dial body. We can see the print is very bright, and the dial plots are thick, and even coloured and I would definitely want to check the dial for correctness and originality - every chance it is correct, but there is an element of doubt we need to eliminate.

The bezel is not attractive - it’s not bad, it’s just a bit degraded around the outside, and I think the colour might be faded slightly - what I mean is that it is not a bezel that many would call beautiful.

I do not think either pusher is correct, again hardly enough evidence but that’s what I think until clearer photos. Not sure about the crown, either.

The end links show quite a lot of play, but this is not unusual.

This looks like a watch from long term ownership where it was worked on by someone without parts, or knowledge, during a time when the watches were not as valuable to justify the expense of finding the right parts - so we must also be ready to find all sorts of internal issues.

A beautiful watch? Interesting, yes, but it has a way to go to be beautiful for me. There are simply too many unknowns and the photos too poor to judge. For me, I cannot yet call this beautiful, though I am always open to hear why something strikes a member as beautiful.

Because while I see potential, I cannot yet see beauty in this one.

dennisthemenace

I think he was referring to the watch @bigsom posted a pic of.

OMEGuy

Hello and welcome @ginge : Apart from the wrong pusher, the watch looks completely legit and beautiful to me. In this condition, it's a rare find nowadays.

Please don't sell it. Wear it.