Seeking advice about originality of Speedmaster 105.003 recently bought

Hello folks,

I bought this Speedmaster 105.003 recently at auction. It hasn't arrived yet, so I'm sorry for the low-res photos taken from the saleroom. I would welcome any advice about whether parts look wrong.

I couldn't afford a perfect watch, so I was happy to buy one at a lower price and later fix any problems. I have a good local watchmaker who can clean & service it.

According to the auctioneer, the watch was in the same family since purchase in London in 1968. That seems to fit with the 3/68 date on the bracelet clasp. I asked whether any parts were replaced by Omega HQ during servicing - the vendor said it was only serviced once, at which time the crystal was changed.

That may not be correct, as it seems to have the wrong chrono seconds hand - maybe from a 145.022? Or did the factory start using those square-end hands at the end of the 105.003's reign and during the transition to later models? Of course, the vendor (or his surviving relatives) may simply not remember other parts being replaced. The crown has a large dent, so I'm guessing that is not a later factory replacement.

When I enlarge the movement photo, it appears to read 26554472.

I can just about see that the inside caseback doesn't have the usual year designation, simply saying 105 003 (apparently without a dot) instead of -65, -68 etc. Is that a concern?

Thanks for any help.

Caseback should have a double step like this:

Summing it up from my POV:

Your watch is in good condition with many original parts: DON Bezel, original crown, Omega signed plexi, 1035 braclet with most likely original '6' endlinks, nice chamfers on the lugs.




At least the chrono hand is different from the usual ones, maybe all (three large) hands have been replaced.

The caseback is not a usual one for this reference with a double step, and -as you already realized- is missing the 'year'

If you are on a budget get it serviced and get the correct hands.

If you want to spend more money start searching for a -65 caseback (with doublestep)

Congratulations! I was also bidding on this one, as I am in a similar situation to you.

My observations where that the hands, caseback and pushers are wrong, but personally I think it is an attractive watch. The serial number is outside of what Speedmaster101 thinks is correct, but according to Moonwatch Only it is ok and the serial number means it is one of the very last Ed Whites sold, which fits with the story.

My guess was that either the owner had forgotten that some of the parts were changed or that as it was sold new so late that maybe the dealer had run out of the correct caseback, hands etc. and used ones meant for newer models instead!

In reply to the previous comment, I knew enough to make a reasonably informed lowish bid (including commission, £4550 or about $6030) - as evidenced by my questions about the wrong seconds hand and caseback. And a tactic of posting a forum message saying "Hey guys, there's a cheap Ed White up for sale, what does everyone think about it?" is likely to greatly reduce the chances of getting a bargain!

Would this hand be suitable as a replacement? Advertised as being "69's style", genuine Omega, suitable for "cal. 321 SPEEDMASTER models 105.002 105.003 145.012" :

Would like to see a better picture of the inner caseback with the reference number when you have the watch in hands... thanks

Along with the other issues noted, the dial has been relumed.

Agreed that wobbly lume is common. Given the replaced hands, the strange caseback, and the out-of-range serial of the movement, it gives more pause about the dial.

The photo of the movement is pretty blurry when I enlarge it. The serial # might begin 2355 ... I'll update once the watch arrives.

Thanks for the comments / help so far.

I asked the auction house before the sale and they told me it was 26554xxx.

Which I believe is in the last thousand serial numbers that I can find quoted as acceptable.