I've been following this watch but a few things are bothering me: The discolored markers, some of the markers don't seem to be properly aligned and the numbers on the bezel seem fuzzy. Are these legitimate issues or is it just the angles of the photos (the discolored markers obviously aren't)?
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f29/[fs]-omega-mark-ii-145-034-a-2317074-2.html

 

Anyone? Bueller?

 

Ferris: Hi. Do you speak English?

 

i'm confused - is this a good watch or a bad one?

 

We'd know if we could get an answer. I know the mark ii is of no interest to a lot of the collectors; perhaps that's the issue.

 

I know that some of us have them. Possibly posting pics may help. Here is mine

 

OP, I think the watch looks ok. You might want to ask for some additional pics from different angles to see if there are issues with those hour markers. I agree, they do look a bit funky, but I think it's just the pics.

 

Thank you. I will do that.

 

+1 on better pics. Numbers on bezel do look fuzzy.

 

The OP watch for sale on WUS is expensive.

These gold MkII's are hard to sell at this level, especially if polished, as this one is, and the service history is told in such a way not to fill me with confidence.

What it does have is the bracelet and that is rare.

The Gold version, the 145.034 is slightly different to the stainless case 145.014, in the the crystal is a different thickness (unless my memory serves me wrong). It is an extremely handsome watch, but it is a big chunk of gold, not the most fashionable, so therefore not the most desirable, so nor therefore valuable.

The sale post does have a few dodgy sentences for me. Here goes:

The watch was serviced and polished. BUT the pushers were not replaced until just before sale - so it was not an Omega service. The case was polished, blurring the lines - but not the case back? Although it doesn't look that bad in the photos.

This is not the rarest MKII. That accolade belongs to the MKII "telestop" made in a run of 50 pieces and I have only ever seen one in person and one in a post.

The 861 was used in the Tuetonic speedmasters as well as other seamasters of the time. I suppose I see what the advert is trying to say, but it isn't quite true.

The watch while designed for NASA, was done without their knowledge or asking. NASA didn't take the watch because the then current speedmaster was sufficient to needs, not because there wasn't enough time to test - they simply didn't want it.

All this points to an enthusiastic seller who doesn't let the truth to get in the way of a well padded advert. Look he isn't a liar, just economical with the truth, or at the very least careless in his research - which calls into question the service history of the watch, that's all.

That said, it is a rare combination - but not one I see selling for more than 1100 to 1400 in auction. BUT I cant sell you one for that, so really if you want it you have to pay the price. All I am saying is that if you buy it, it may be some time before you can get your money back should you want to.

This version is after all the least desirable MKII, even though it is the second rarest and has the rare gold tone bracelet.

 

Thanks for the in-depth analysis. The cost and service history is an issue for me, too. Assuming the things that I thought might be wrong with the watch, aren't, I fully intended to offer less than the asking price. Now I can think about it with a lot more information.

 

Just to clarify - I think I have mentioned this before, but the 145014 and 145034 both came in different case materials. The 145014 came in stainless steel and solid 18k yellow gold. The 145034 came in stainless steel, solid 18k yellow gold, and yellow gold plate.

Indeed the crystal for the 145034 is 2.5 mm thick, where the 145014 is 3 mm thick.

Cheers, Al

 

thea really have made only 50 ...so i'm happy to have a rare bird

 

mine says hi.

 

Hi ....FYI

 

I found this statement in the seller's promotional blurb to be a bit of an over-reach:

"Yesterday, in anticipation of selling, I had the crown and pushers replaced, as well I had the watch inspected and regulated to COSC standards."

What's bothersome is that there is an implication that the watch conforms with the COSC chronometer standard for timekeeping precision, thus leading a prospective buyer to believe that the watch is more precise than it may actually be. I'm going to give the seller the benefit of the doubt and presume that what he/she actually means is that on the day that the watch was taken into the shop to have the crown and pushers replaced, it was also regulated such that its apparent daily timekeeping variation fell somewhere in the -4 to +6 sec/day range. It's certainly possible that a randomly selected Cal. 861 movement could indeed meet the COSC chronometer standard, but to make that claim in a way that is credible for a specific watch (one which was not initially COSC certified at the time of manufacture), it would have to be subjected to the 15-day, multi-position, multi-temperature test specified in the ISO 3159:2009 standard.

 

mine says hi

 

When I see this it's pretty clear he's not claiming to have run the watch through the full COSC testing regimen, but has simply had the watch regulated to the typical "-4 to +6" average daily rate that pretty much everyone associates with "COSC specs."

COSC is an over rated thing to start with IMO so this is not something I would personally get too worked up about.

Cheers, Al

 

So has anybody jumped on the watch & bought it?