Is it possible that a speedy 145.012 /67 could have an extract with the movement 2054**** ?. Seems to be pushing the boundaries a little. Also the extract 'states' to the NAFFI.

 

That sounds very strange. The extract says 20.5M and 145.012? Can you show photos?

 

The extract I saw yesterday states 24'53x'xxx for a 105'003-64 and april 1967 (which "complies" with ilovemyspeedmasters prediction) and also NAAFI

 

Thanks for your reply. No I don't. It's just the usual ebay claim.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/OMEGA-SPEEDMASTER-PRE-MOON-Cal-321/163695559366Purchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network
I have a correct movement for it and thought it 'could' be worth an exchange for this 'probably' 1964 movement?. But if indeed it is possible to have an extract for this serial of '67/8, it wouldn't long term be much good to me!

 

That’s more like a -65 serial, the extract doesn’t state the iteration just 105.003. My NAAFI April ‘66 dated EW -65 is on 22.82m

 

But the pic of the caseback does.

 

Thanks momosono. Well that seems to suggest a deal could be possible to make his watch correct as oppose to no correct identity, ie. the case back?. (and mine 'closer')
I'm only interested as I bought a 'franken' with 24066*** the other day (another thread) but as the archives are closed at present, can't verify mine.

 

Then it’s likely been replaced. It’s far too late for a -64. Or the movement has been swapped into a ‘64 case.

 

I looked at the eBay listing, and it's really hard to tell anything with certainty. However, it is consistent with a 145.012 since it appears to have a wide T dial and flat-ended sweep hand. Incorrect DNN bezel. You can't read the serial number on the movement and there is no photo of the extract. It's quite likely that the seller is simply mistaken about something or other. Maybe the second digit is actually a "6".

 

Probably most likely the wrong case back.

 

That could be, but at the very least, the extract should say 105.012, not 145.012. Or the extract might say 105.003, making it a total transplant. Or ...?

 

Makes me wonder whether Omega supplied the NAFFI with older components?. Still documented with April '67 however. This I would have thought would conclude that a 105.003-64 case back would be correct/needed?. (or my 24066*** movement which would date fit the rest of his watch (bar specified bezel).
This is all a bit of a mystery!.

 

Never heard of that. It’s NAAFI by the way.

 

Course it is....typo

 

Turns out it is a ‘typo’. It is a 6 !

 

This is why you always want to get good photos of everything and you don't just accept what someone tells you.