Forums Latest Members
  1. JamesL1680 Oct 15, 2017

    Posts
    154
    Likes
    321
    Hi Everyone,

    I've been able to use Speedmaster101 to confirm most details of my 105.012. Serial number is properly in range for a -65 as indicated inside the caseback, but does it make sense that the production date (as confirmed by an extract) is late 1966? The dial is stepped AML with long indices and the index lume holds up under UV so I believe it to be original, but I know the hands have been color matched. Spear chrono-hand, DO90 with a nice blueish-gray fade in certain light, 7mm 24-foot crown, and what I think are correct low pushers. I haven't really been able to find great comparisons of polished vs. unpolished (the search function here on OF hasn't liked the vagueness of "105.012 polish" very much). I was hoping some of the trained eyes of OF could weigh in on the state of the case? I know what happens when posters forget photos so here they are...(some feature my feet in the background so I apologize in advance!)
    IMG_0031.JPG IMG_0033.JPG IMG_0034.JPG IMG_0035.JPG IMG_0037.JPG IMG_0038.JPG IMG_0039.JPG IMG_0040.JPG IMG_0042.JPG IMG_0043.JPG IMG_0044.JPG IMG_0048.JPG IMG_0049.JPG
     
  2. eugeneandresson 'I used a hammer, a chisel, and my fingers' Oct 15, 2017

    Posts
    5,001
    Likes
    14,594
    Hi James

    What a lovely watch. I am no expert but that case looks pretty sharp to me...i.e. the facet edge between the brushed sides and the polished lugs (and again between the top of the polished lugs to the brushed bit on the inside toward the strap...I would say 'unpolished'.

    Wear in good health (and the ultimate compliment : DIBS!)...

    Best regards,
    Eugene
     
    JamesL1680 and LeoneFM like this.
  3. maxbelg Oct 15, 2017

    Posts
    491
    Likes
    595
    Beautiful! If it has been polished, it certainly hasn't been over-polished. Only thing left to do is get a nice JB Champion instead of leather......
     
    JamesL1680 likes this.
  4. Timmert Oct 15, 2017

    Posts
    264
    Likes
    412
    Great looking watch!

    It's not uncommon for Speedmasters to have the production year differ from the reference year. As long as the movement serial is in range, I'd say it is all correct.
    Pushers are correct as well ( easiest way to check is a movement shot, there you can see the "fat neck" of these low pushers, versus the thinner neck on later models.)

    While I believe most vintage watches have seen some polishing in their life, to me it is more important that the case retains it original lines and character, like yours does.

    Enjoy it!
     
    JamesL1680 likes this.
  5. Dgercp Oct 15, 2017

    Posts
    1,072
    Likes
    1,454
    Got yourself a beauty! Enjoy it.
     
    JamesL1680 likes this.
  6. LeoneFM Oct 15, 2017

    Posts
    109
    Likes
    692
    It seems to be not polished IMHO.. a beautiful watch!
    Congrats

    :)
     
    JamesL1680 likes this.
  7. kreyke Oct 15, 2017

    Posts
    626
    Likes
    838
    So sharp it hurts my eyes
     
    JamesL1680 likes this.
  8. JamesL1680 Oct 15, 2017

    Posts
    154
    Likes
    321
    thanks for the kind words, everyone! and @eugeneandresson - dibs noted!

    one last question i forgot to ask - i noticed that some 105.012-65 casebacks have an "S" prefix like mine, while others do not. can anyone shed some light on that variation? thanks much once again!
     
  9. Seaborg Oct 16, 2017

    Posts
    1,532
    Likes
    3,580
    It is a very clean Speedy you have here !

    The lugs edges are really sharp. The 321 movement looks also very clean.

    A gem you have here :thumbsup:
     
    JamesL1680 likes this.
  10. Seaborg Oct 16, 2017

    Posts
    1,532
    Likes
    3,580
    [​IMG]

    (Over)polised vs. unpolished Speedies (image extracted from Speedmaster101.com)
     
    Timmert, JamesL1680 and Spacefruit like this.
  11. DonovanMartin Oct 16, 2017

    Posts
    303
    Likes
    301
    That is very nice!
     
    JamesL1680 likes this.