Omega Speedmaster 2998-5 Tube /Pipe Nipple/Flat story

Posts
271
Likes
252
They are baton instead of alpha?


(I'm trying 😕)
Small 12h hand head is diferent no bewel
Only by 2998-5 is diferent and maybe new ref in 1962 only
 
Posts
1,552
Likes
3,643
Small 12h hand head is diferent no bewel
Only by 2998-5 is diferent and maybe new ref in 1962 only

The non-nippled hour sub-register hand is NOT seen only on 2998-5. It is common to all Speedmasters up to 105002.
From 105.003, the nipple appears.
This is a very important clue when assessing a pre-105.003 Speedy.
 
Posts
271
Likes
252
The non-nippled hour sub-register hand is NOT seen only on 2998-5. It is common to all Speedmasters up to 105002.
From 105.003, the nipple appears.
This is a very important clue when assessing a pre-105.003 Speedy.
Bravo Mr
 
Posts
2,286
Likes
5,585
its only light refresch not polished
The case has been (incorrectly) polished. Much more than a "light refresh"
The running seconds and minute subdial hands are service replacement from the mid 70's.
Original period subdial hands are pointier like on @pdxleaf 's watch shown above.
The flat "No nipple" hour subdial hands (Leaf or stick) were standard from the CK2915-1 reference to early 105.003-63/64.
 
Posts
271
Likes
252
The case has been (incorrectly) polished. Much more than a "light refresh"
The running seconds and minute subdial hands are service replacement from the mid 70's.
Original period subdial hands are pointier like on @pdxleaf 's watch shown above.
The flat "No nipple" hour subdial hands (Leaf or stick) were standard from the CK2915-1 reference to early 105.003-63/64.
do Your home work📖
 
Posts
1,552
Likes
3,643
FYI, @ndgal is one of the foremost authorities on vintage Speedmasters.
+1

OP, my good friend @ndgal is the human Speedmaster Museum, listen to him.
 
Posts
6,629
Likes
21,412
Since we’re talking about nipples…

I’m honestly having difficulty differentiating between the “no-nipple” sub-dial hand, and the “nippled ” variety.

This photo is from a 105.003-63:




This one from a 145.012. Both original, and should have different nipples. I’m not seeing much of a difference…

 
Posts
271
Likes
252
Since we’re talking about nipples…

I’m honestly having difficulty differentiating between the “no-nipple” sub-dial hand, and the “nippled ” variety.

This photo is from a 105.003-63:




This one from a 145.012. Both original, and should have different nipples. I’m not seeing much of a difference…

Mr Bob, i meet in Wienna Werry noteable Mr Rudy (Chronothek | Rolex > gebrauchte Sammleruhren in Wien)
and thogether make inspection on varius 2998 ,two 2998-5 of have no nipple 12h small hands ,one was his origin from new state,one owner,newer opened with same as my no nipple small hands 12h,
concludion is in year 1962,2998-5 and 105.002 afect this mall dinsction among other 2998 s.
One member explain this wery notiable and with arguments in thread before.
besr reg
Bassem
 
Posts
6,629
Likes
21,412
Mr Bob, i meet in Wienna Werry noteable Mr Rudy (Chronothek | Rolex > gebrauchte Sammleruhren in Wien)
and thogether make inspection on varius 2998 ,two 2998-5 of have no nipple 12h small hands ,one was his origin from new state,one owner,newer opened with same as my no nipple small hands 12h,
concludion is in year 1962,2998-5 and 105.002 afect this mall dinsction among other 2998 s.
One member explain this wery notiable and with arguments in thread before.
besr reg
Bassem

Thanks. Any comparison pictures that would help me spot the difference?
 
Posts
271
Likes
252
Thanks. Any comparison pictures that would help me spot the difference?
Mr Bob, focus on small hole and flat suface....you heve lot on net pictures of 2998-5 or 105.oo2 -62
 
Posts
6,629
Likes
21,412
Mr Bob, focus on small hole and flat suface....you heve lot on net pictures of 2998-5 or 105.oo2 -62

Actually, if I could have easily seen the difference by just looking at pictures on the net, I wouldn’t have bothered asking the question.