Seeking insight on a 145.022-69 with applied logo dial.

Posts
21,602
Likes
48,952
S Shez
Thanks for your response! So your opinion is that the caseback has been swapped at some point?

In the absence of direct knowledge to the contrary, I think this will always be the most likely scenario, and therefore what most people will assume to be the case. In general, it's pretty difficult to convince people that a given watch represents an extreme outlier unless you really know it to be true, e.g. if you were the original owner and had photo documentation.
 
Posts
5,859
Likes
16,770
S Shez
Thanks for your response! So your opinion is that the caseback has been swapped at some point?

Unfortunately yes.
 
Posts
521
Likes
410
+1
I’ve seen numerous 273xxxxx 145.022-68.
Production date is consistent with a 68.
yep, i have a 273xxxxx.
Edited:
 
Posts
9
Likes
13
In the absence of direct knowledge to the contrary, I think this will always be the most likely scenario, and therefore what most people will assume to be the case. In general, it's pretty difficult to convince people that a given watch represents an extreme outlier unless you really know it to be true, e.g. if you were the original owner and had photo documentation.

I guess this is a case of 'the simplest explanation is usually the most likely one'. Thank you so much for your input!

Unfortunately yes.

There's no unfortunately about it, as nothing I learn here will affect my enjoyment of the watch even the smallest amount! It's just nice to have possible explanation for this interesting anomaly and to learn from all of you much more knowledgeable and experienced folks!

---

Thank you everyone for your inputs and insights!