I am wanting to buy a vintage Speedmaster (pre moon) and I have located a 105.012 (64 stamped) with an early 1965 bracelet. It has no original box, paperwork or extract of archives included with it and if I buy it I intend to get an extract myself.

I am looking for an opinion as to whether this would count as a true 1964 example. The bezel, face, bracelet and end links all look of matching age. It is clearly not polished and the bezel is some what scarred but legible enough to see it is an apparently original and genuine dot over nine.

With regards to the extract of archives do they use the date of manufacturer of the calibre or the date of shipment?

It seems there is something of a trend to try and get a reference matching the purchasers year of birth which if this truly counts as a 64 would match mine It would not be a huge disaster if it counts as a 65 as this then matches Neil Armstrong's one as worn during the Apollo 11 flight.

There are as the many more knowledgable people here will know slightly newer but still pre moon 145.012 examples which would look fresher even if not polished.

I suspect it may not have been serviced for a long time, at least not via Omega themselves.

 

It might, but might not. Sub-reference number (-64) is the year of conception/design-change...which may or may not mean production began in 64.

Great question. It normally is the production date (or date of assembly of the entire watch), but for whatever reason, it may at times be shipping date. Here is a great article describing how it works.

If you have the serial number you can enter it here and see what it tells you ... it should be very very close for this period.

We do love pictures here...feel free to post some! And welcome.

 

Only problem with dating a Speedmaster is you have to have her home by midnight.

And they're easy to get all wound up, if you know what I mean...

 

There is no official definition of what constitutes a birth year watch, so you are free to choose whatever definition you prefer. The Extract will give you the date of delivery. I believe that Armstrong's was a 105.012-65, not a -64.

 

Thanks for that link. I don't (yet) have the full serial number but the partial number I have suggests it is going to be counted as a 1965 which would be consistent with the 'newest' stamped date i.e. the bracelet. Interestingly I found a couple of websites which suggest based on the first few digits that I have it could be a 64 (but also could be a 65) but the site you linked to suggests even 22000000 would be a 65.

See - http://www.db1983.com/omega-speedmaster-serial-numbers
and - http://chronomaddox.com/romans.html
and - http://speedmaster101.com/serial-quick-reference-to-78/
and - https://lunaroyster.com/resources/omega-speedmaster-date-of-manufacture-by-serial-numbers/

This - https://www.watchbooksonly.com/omeg...view-of-the-speedmaster-moonwatch-production/ seems the most definitive still and also suggests it is a 64 stamp but 65 production run.
This - http://chronomaddox.com/omega_serial_numbers.html also seems to say 65.

This https://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/omega-serial-numbers-727263-post5298136.html#post5298136 suggests Omega do indeed use the date shipped and therefore the archive extract if/when obtained will show it as 1965.

On balance I now believe it should sadly be considered a 65.

So I now need to decide between what seems a completely genuine unmolested 105.012 from 1965 or a cheaper also apparently unmolested 145.012 from 1968 with box and extract and in slightly better condition. Anyone have an opinion on which to get? (The 145.012 from 1968 would be roughly equivalent to the one worn by Buzz Aldrin, and for that matter Michael Collins. See - https://omegaforums.net/threads/som...-145-012’s-serial-number-extract-issue.74281/)

 

You really should show photos of the two watches if you want us to opine.

 

Not my photos and hence not my copyright.

 

This has been covered exhaustively, and is not really an issue. It's your choice, but I don't think you can get legitimate advice without sharing photos or links.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/do-we-really-have-a-copyright-on-pics-we-post.94350/

 

My pleasure. I actually sent you 2 links. I highly recommend you read the first (which is a superior source of info on how the archive process actually works and what ‘production date’ on the extract means)

 

Hmm! Very interesting! That suggests there is a chance they would list it on the extract as production year 1964 if they have that listed as when the movement was made vs instead of a shipping date that will undoubtedly be 1965.

Hmm! That has thrown a cat amongst the pigeons. Regardless of what the extract date shows I think it was late 64 to early 65 for final assembly making it a 50/50 chance.

 

Ok, I have managed to get pictures of the faces of each.
First is the 105-012



Second is the 145.012]

 

The 145.012 appears to be a much better watch.

If you use speedmaster101 as a price guide remember those bracelets are not included in the price. I’d say about $800 would be a ballpark.

 

I think they both have appeal, but obviously the 105.012 has condition issues with the bezel and lume. Just depends on price, and what you're looking for. Collector-quality or wearer? Is the moon-landing connection of the 105.012 important to you? Just throwing some questions out there.

 

Interestingly I found a couple of websites which suggest based on the first few digits that I have it could be a 64 (but also could be a 65) but the site you linked to suggests even 22000000 would be a 65.

My 105.012-64 with serial 2208xxxx is dated May 31 1965