Just picked this 1963-4 catalogue from the post office, having missed the delivery earlier in the week. It was a nice surprise to find that the Speedmaster page captures the 105.002 and marks the short transition from the 2998. I was expecting to see a 105.003.
Very cool, the watch in the picture does look fairly early, appears to be a straight second hand and leaf shaped subdial hands?
That catalog is a nice find. Thanks for posting. Hard to see from the photo, but the minute hand doesn't seem to extend all the way to the markers. Let me know if it's just my eyes failin' me here.
John R Smith said ↑ The coolest thing is the price I'd take 50 at that price, please I'm not so greedy: I'll take that one for 50x the price ;-)
Thanks for this old pictures. I'm interesting by the seamaster 300 ref 14755. The pict show it with a baton second hands. i've the same on mine but i was sure the second hand was the same of the sm 300 165.014.
Pictures/drawings from catalogs Often do not correspond to the current model. They did not care at model accuracy at that time. 63-64 is logic to have 105.002
Collectors of just about anything have created significance where none existed at the time. Perhaps this is simply a result of the need to justify the expenditure of huge sums on the basis of rarity or perceived desirability. In guitars it might be the subtle difference between two potentiometer codes on otherwise identical Fender Strats. For Hasselblad camera lenses it could be the presence (or absence) of a red star engraved on the front retaining ring. For vintage watches . . . well, you name it. And for Omega Speedmasters the sky seems to be the limit.
... "Collectors of just about anything have created significance where none existed at the time. Perhaps this is simply a result of the need to justify the expenditure ... Well said! Not scientific mind you, but would guess wives maaaay be involved. Speaking from my own experience, of course
Correct, I am amazed such small details, that might meaning nothing for 99.9% of the population, will create such big value difference for the collectors. They are irrational bunch ....and I am one of them
Well-said, John! Although note that the T* in Hasselblad lenses (specifically, the Zeiss lenses) indicates that the lens was multi-coated, to help reduce lens flare. Multi-coating began circa 1973, with marking (T*) indicating such beginning circa 1975. It's funny, although not entirely surprising, that youd find calibre 321 Omega enthusiasts in the same crowd as classic Hasselblad 500 enthusiasts! cheers, Mark
Yes, well I didn't mean to imply that all Hasselblad lenses with the red star are collectible. And as you say, the star at least does have some functional significance. I was referring to the collectability of those rare early silver C-lenses which have the red T star - only two focal lengths, the 50mm and the 80mm, and very few produced.
![[IMG]](proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fomegaforums.net%2Fdata%2Favatars%2Fs%2F3%2F3657.jpg%3F1375801233&hash=1e213167cb6c984e21a2e2e1f3c871a2)
