Omega Speedmaster (original hands or not?)

Posts

22

Likes

2

SteinsonOmega

·Apr 12, 2021

Hello everyone!

I have recently bought this beautiful 1987 Speedmaster pro.

My question is: in some lighting the patina on the hands looks a little more bright white than it does on the actual dial. Would you say that it is normal to have some different in aging? Are my eyes fooling me? Or do you think that the hands are a replacement?

Thanks!

 

Posts

2,144

Likes

2,943

Passover

·Apr 12, 2021

Different looking lume on dial vs hands is quite often seen

Could you try to upload better pictures? Very hard to see on the ones above...

Did you already check with UV light?

 

Posts

1,565

Likes

3,672

Seaborg

·Apr 12, 2021

Original hands : yes.
Period correct : maybe not. It depends if they are Luminova or Tritium (hard to tell from those pictures). UV test will tell. My guess is yes, they are period correct (Tritium).

 

Posts

9,741

Likes

54,499

gbesq

·Apr 12, 2021

This watch looks like a reference 3590.50 which is the last Speedmaster reference to use tritium lume on the dial and hands. As Passover noted, it's not at all unusual for the tritium lume on the hands to age differently than the lume on the hour markers. From what I can see on the photos, my guess is that the hands are tritium and period correct.

 

Posts

24,266

Likes

54,041

Dan S

·Apr 12, 2021

Unfortunately, I can't really get a good sense of the color and texture of the lume from the OP photos. If this is really important to you, perhaps you can take some good in-focus macro photos in natural light and also some photos under UV excitation. If they are simply slightly lighter in tone, they could certainly be original. If there is a greenish tint to the lume in the hands, they could be later luminova service hands.

 

Posts

22

Likes

2

SteinsonOmega

·Apr 12, 2021

Thank you for all your answers so far! If it is a reference 3590.50 I must have the dating of the watch wrong? This was an estimate from the seller who had the box, but not the papers so that might very well be the case.

I have tried to take better photos, unfortunately my older iPhone isn’t really working with me so this is the best I could do😜 The picture taken in the dark is after exposure to sun for about ten minutes and is taken directly after being brought inside.

(The hands definitely got a little more aging than I’m managing to capture on pictures)

 

Posts

24,266

Likes

54,041

Dan S

·Apr 12, 2021

The fact that the hands respond so differently to excitation suggest to me that they are replacements. But honestly, they don't look bad at all to the naked eye.

 

Posts

22

Likes

2

SteinsonOmega

·Apr 12, 2021

Dan S

The fact that the hands respond so differently to excitation suggest to me that they are replacements. But honestly, they don't look bad at all to the naked eye.

Yes i was thinking the same thing, but I’m not entiiiirely sure😜 Thank you, I agree it really looks good and is going to be a keeper for me so this is just for my curiosity😀

 

Posts

943

Likes

2,443

vibe

·Apr 12, 2021

I have a 1993 3511.50 speedmaster date and the hands/dial react the same way. I assume that the hands are service replacements.

 

Posts

670

Likes

6,560

keepsonticking

·Apr 14, 2021

Given the relative youth of this watch, it's likely the hands have not been altered. The 3590 should be a Speedmaster to just wear and enjoy without the endless discussion of service parts, polishing, etc. If you want a Speedmaster that looks a little aged, without the woes of cal 321 parts, that will run forever, just enjoy it.

 

Posts

22

Likes

2

SteinsonOmega

·Apr 14, 2021

keepsonticking

Given the relative youth of this watch, it's likely the hands have not been altered. The 3590 should be a Speedmaster to just wear and enjoy without the endless discussion of service parts, polishing, etc. If you want a Speedmaster that looks a little aged, without the woes of cal 321 parts, that will run forever, just enjoy it.

Thanks! I definitely enjoy it and will keep doing it😉