bassem abadan
·This has been a fascinating and informative thread. Though I can’t actually figure out what I’ve learnt from it.
Edited:
This has been a fascinating and informative thread. Though I can’t actually figure out what I’ve learnt from it.
Ahh, Once again my reading comprehension has let me down. I see your point.
@ndgal, can you clarify this remark, "The flat "No nipple" hour subdial hands (Leaf or stick) were standard from the CK2915-1 reference to early 105.003-63/64."?
Does this mean that some early 105.003s had the no nipple? If so, did they appear alongside the ones with the nipple, or is it believed that there was a cut over after a brief period? Is there any indication of a date period when a switch was made?
This is all new to me so thanks to all for the explanations.
Indeed.
I recently acquired a completely untouched 105.003-64 'Ed White' from a single family ownership and it has the "No nipple" hour subdial hand.
As this is a completely untouched specimen, it is safe to assume that this is how it came from the factory. I have seen others (105.003) in the past, but none were in such magnificent state of preservation and originality that it was anyone's guess if the part was installed the factory or at some later point/service.
As received:
Completely untouched movement:
(Those with a keen eye will notice the original springbar peeking through the end link slot...).
After Plexi clean-up:
Only 2998-5 up to 105.002-62 no nipple,.
Bravo for You time capsule stunnig sample
You keep stating facts with no evidence to back them up and expect everyone to blindly take your words as the truth.
What leads you to this theory?
You understand the point though? Anyone could just show a picture of a few watches and say, “I own loads of these and have read loads of books, listen to what I say as I’m right”. It doesn’t mean anything unless you can evidence your investigation and conclusions.
Simply stating something as fact with no justification isn’t going to win over people who don’t agree.
You understand the point though? Anyone could just show a picture of a few watches and say, “I own loads of these and have read loads of books, listen to what I say as I’m right”. It doesn’t mean anything unless you can evidence your investigation and conclusions.
Simply stating something as fact with no justification isn’t going to win over people who don’t agree.
This. I mean I could state as a fact I have a beautiful well behaved cuddly cat. And the pictures support this. In fact she is a scratchy psycho and has killed at least 3 Vets.
You understand the point though? Anyone could just show a picture of a few watches and say, “I own loads of these and have read loads of books, listen to what I say as I’m right”. It doesn’t mean anything unless you can evidence your investigation and conclusions.
Simply stating something as fact with no justification isn’t going to win over people who don’t agree.
Dear Mr
Every one have his opinion my theread is real one on my watch
And exsamin it with same 2998-5
Allso owner of second watch didn now until i show it on my 2998-5
Can You provide oposite clue thats i foolisch OF member?
For supersticion OF friend
I ask Omega experts to clarife it
Mr Omega book moonwatch only
Mr Andrea Fofi
Mr Jan Brojer
And mistery one omega 101
To make it clear for all if they now this.
Wait and educate your self
Beautiful Haiku.
This configuration of subdial hands was present in pre seamaster cal. 321 watches as well as 2998s from -1
That's already taken by the 12 o'c.ock marker.
This thread is one of the best. Just when you think it’s done it keeps on giving.