Omega Speedmaster 105.003-65 and 105.012-65

Good morning Forums Folks!

Some of you might have read my previous posts regarding my "hunt" for Speedmasters (and also Submariners)
with production years 1966...
And I would like to share my recent searches, both to check if I´m correct and also to let others get a hint of what problems you can find....

Anyway...this is a looooong post!

Here are a couple more that I have found that I think have issues, and if possible - could you have a look at these, your opinions are much appreciated?
I have received quite a lot of input before from members and some "lashing" as well, but since I am still learning, I thinks it is fair - so keep up the good work! 😀
And once again - sorry if my spelling etc isn't perfect, since I'm a Swede....

Nr one:
105.003-65 Ed White, serial nr 24002811, with an extract, and a production date 15/9 1966.
This one made me "flipp" since that's one day before my birthday/year!!
So I started looking at the watch closely, sadly, the auction house had one crapy picture of the watch, and then
pictures of the extract and other non-watch pictures....
So I had to open an account to access more pictures!
But looking at the pictures - there was SWISS MADE on the dial, but still the metal Omega logo and long indices, and also no professional under the Speedmaster logo (2-liner??..sorry if I use Submariner words😉).
And there is a step there...
My thought about the watch:
Not correct dial for this watch, the hands look like replacement/relume since the lume looks to new to the watch?
Lumplots look so so...not good and not bad?
The bezel checks out correct, DON, the fonts on 70/75 and 130, its got a lot of scratches but charming!
321 movement, caseback has 105.003-65 stamped, and has 2 bevels/steps.
Pushers looks original, not sure about the crown.
The case is polished of course, bit still ok (for me!).
I will skip the assessment of the bracelet and end link for now (waiting for more info)...

And here are the pictures, the first one is the one that they first showed on there webpage!









Nr two:
105.012-65, serial nr 24001084, so this one should be in the 1966 range.
Checked with ilovemyspeedmaster.com, and it showed June 1966! Yippie!!!
There were 4 pictures to start with, so I had to ask for more (and open an account..).
But the first one on the webpage made a bit worried..
Painted Omega logo and short indices...🙁
And looking at the pictures I received, I had a hard time finding a step on the dial..
So I had to ask for more (and these are Italian dudes.. think Rocky Balboa..🤔)!
And these pics showed no step...
So I kind of lost interest, but did my work anyway..

My thought about the watch:
Not correct dial for this watch, the hands look ok, a bit to new for this watch..

The bezel looks to checks out correct here also,
DON, the fonts on 70/75 , and it look ok.
321 movement, caseback has 105.012-65 stamped with 2 bevels/steps.
Pushers and crown are replacements.
The case is looks shiny and quit nice for its age, polished but nice!!
No bracelet.

And the pictures, again, first one from the website!





So there you have it!

Please do let me know, and bring on the "lashing"🤔😉!
Have in mind that it took me a lot of time to do the research (which is the fun part!!) and also the making of this post...
I maybe should have done it in 2 posts/parts?

Cheers!

I think your assessments are good. The 105.003 likely has service hands. I think the lume on the dial might be original (despite that squeezed toothpaste lume on the 3 marker!) and is not unattractive. The end links are aftermarket so don’t give any value to those. It’s so close to your actual birthday maybe you should put in a bid that you are happy with and if you get it you can find the correct parts over time.
The 105.012 has service dial, hands, pushers and crown for starters, so would need to be very cheap to consider it.

Both have major issues. The Ed White should have T marks either side of the Swiss Made so something major is amiss there, the Pro has a later replacement dial, from the 80s maybe.

Agreed. The 105.003 may have a 2998 dial, re-lumed. The lume just doesn’t sit well with me.

@SpeedyPhill :

Got mine, but not the same cover as yours! Should have bought the High Roller Package...😉

@Dash1 : Thanks for the compliments! But still waiting for more to come...
And its really tempting to go for the Ed White! And live with the dial, and maybe down the road...

And the delivery adress is so cool!😎
Attaching pic..

And I have already skipped on the 105.012-65.

Yepp, Not that I'm close to knowing...
But they look weird..?

No that is perfectly normal for Ed White Lume. The lack of T marks however is not.

Subjective I guess. I’ve seen wobbly, but this just looks re-applied.

Agree. Perhaps we're looking at a relatively recent Luminova service dial which has been re-lumed to make it look more vintage? Would explain the lack of T marks in combination with a font which simply doesn't look right for a 2998 dial (either).

Hands look a bit too fresh to my eyes too, so a modified service dial might not be that farfetched.

Perhaps but the font, step and condition make me also think it is actually an earlier dial than is actually appropriate of the model, maybe from a tritium 105.002-62 or as noted above, a 2998 dial that has been messed with. What it isnt is a doctored FOIS dial for instance, and it doesn't look like a recent service dial either.

@padders - really strange with the dial, makes me uncertain of buying, Im not in the mood to have these issues with such an expensive watch!

Well, the auctions have ended..

And the Ed White with the non-correct dial was sold for 11000 € + a premium of 26%, only one bidder, and he got it under the low estimate of 12000€

And the 105.012-65 was sold for 6500 € + a premium of 30%, estimate 6-8K €.

So what do we think about this??

That waiting on actually original examples is a good idea? 😀 Personally, I wouldn’t have wanted any of the two for those prices, I’d much prefer the right dial (etc.).