Time for some bat signals?

@Spacefruit , @speedy4ever , @MSNWatch , @doctor steel

 

Well if you are going to seek that killer picture that proves otherwise....I would say you are in the right place

 

I've done as much research as I can and I can find, I've exhausted all of my trails which keep leading me to the same conclusion. If some of our speedy officanado's can offer more insight I would welcome it but at this moment in time sheer volume of evidence seems to drawn one of three conclusions

1: Every 64 that seems to be in the public domain has bee massively over polished on the lug edges only

2: There was a batch of 64's with these non bevel edges cases amongst the wider circulation of normal bevel edge cases

3: It is a one year only case design for reasons currently unknown

 

I'm not calling your research into question Tom (im still a newbie compared to many here!), I just find it intriguing - somewhat like the 66 CB case.

Does anyone know if midcase and case back were produced as a unit? When did casebacks get stamped? When you consider that 105.003s were produce until '69, but retained the - 65 stamp, its just strange that Omega would (or even would be able to) have to the control of one straight lug reference that was squeezed in between, especially with all the other speedmaster refs they'd be producing at that time.

A puzzle for sure... great, more speedy trivia to obsess over.

 

Never thought you where for second buddy, I've got to the end of the line at what was publicly available to me hence my posting here.

The only lines open to me are ther relevant books, the museum and our good old friend the internet but the wealth of information contained in OF and amongst it's members will either validate or invalidate my conclusions, happy either way but wanted to share my knowledge and hopefully get some other OF members and speedy nuts in on the discussion so we can drawn some meaningful conclusions

 

So who are the case manufacturers of the 64? Is it HF?

Just to expand slightly, we know the 65 was produced by the 'unknown' RJ? Case maker.

This suggests Omega had an issue with the cases in 64/65, causing them to turn to a new case manufacturer. Were Omega not happy with the 64 case? Were they having trouble sourcing them in sufficient numbers? Did the 64 case manufacturer withdraw their services? Did switching production to the asymetric cases cause an issue with HF producing straight lugs at the same time?

I've no idea, but I think confirming the case manufacturers might help.

Edit: to answer my own question, a quick search suggests all or at least most of the -64's and 63's were made by HF.

 

An admittedly confusing question. Some unmolested straight-lug examples of 105.003 I have seen have that extra bevel on the side, and they are above the horizontal brushing, and at a very shallow angle, meaning: they are easily removed without the slightest provocation. The point: very minty examples can look like the no-bevel 1964 shape that has been hypothesized, but were probably originally the one-bevel style.

How could this happen: if you see them in the flesh, it becomes apparent. The bevel is SO shallow, that when you see it, you think, hmmm, some idiot high-polished the top of this brush-finish - I better put the brush finish back to make it original.

 

Thanks Tom, all clear from here now, don't have one to compare, but yes all the 64 s don't seem to have faceted lugs.

 

Tom,

Your astute observations on the 64's got me thinking back, so I fired up the old computer and found this discussion from 12 years ago with a noted Omega collector from the past. Also, have included the original pic from that discussion, which was done on a scanner (were camera phones available then?). The differences between the two are subtle from the poor scan (64 on the left), but you can still make out the sharper edge there. One could argue that because the hands and bezel are not original, that the case was refinished as well. This is actually not the case, because I stupidly changed those items back in the day to make the watch look better...don't forget, this was WAY before they were super-valuable, and people frowned on replacement parts; case was untouched. Will continue to look for my exchange with Chuck Maddox. Don't know if it clarifies anything, but it might be of interest:



Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:17 AM

Hi Richard,

Saw your recent post regarding the 105.003-64, which you and I agreed on long ago always (thus far) has the two-bevel surface.
However, in your post, you mention that in the other style (three-bevel), the seperating bevel has a high finish, as does the tops. This runs counter to my experience, though, as I have two CK-2998 that are essentially NOS, with that seperating bevel being brush finish, as the sides. Might this have changed with 105.002/105.003? I wonder...

Regards,

Bob

Hi Bob,


apparently BOTH types of finishing were used. Omega has asked me on one occasion - I do not remember wether it was for a 2998 or a 105003 - wether I wanted the satinized finish or the high gloss. I do have watches both ways myself. I do have the feeling though that the high gloss on the top and the bevel was more common. It is very interesting to see these different types on the various watches that are in the Omega Museum.


Regards from Zurich


Richard

 

Bob

That's brilliant research, thank you so much, great looking watches BTW! I've reached out to some other friends who might be able to shed light and am waiting to hear back from them

 

Tom,

Many thanks. Will very much look forward to what you uncover. Uncanny that a nearly identical conclusion was reached almost twelve years apart!

 

Well I have some more feedback from a friend who has a lot of experience in Speedies and his opinion is that he's never seen a 64 with bevel edges and he's probably seen in excess of 100 over the years. I am waiting and hoping to hear back from my other 'expert friend' but for now the evidence still seem to be swinging in the favour of single year only case for me

 

One just posted on ebay. It looks like it had a bevel at one time to me, but I dunno.

 

I've just put together some cutouts from pictures of my 2998-4, -5, 105.002-62 and 105.003-64. Unfortunately the 2998-5 is a little bit rocked, so can't be taken for reference, but the other look pretty good, I think. Although it's not that obvious to tell from that picture, I agree with you that all 105.003-64 have sharp edges and no facets.

 

Really useful images, many thanks, Im feeling quite confident about the 64 at the moment but still hoping to hear from other informed 'seedy aficionado's' on the forum

 

Here is another one of my 105.003-64 solo. The sharp edges are clearly to see.

 

A fellow forum member gave me a link to a brilliant source I have not yet discovered, it is a collection of NASA flown watches at the Smithsonian research on these very special watches, amongst them Where some 64's Jim Lovell's untouched and unpolished 105.003-64 from Gemini 12 and Tom Stafford's 105.003-64 from Gemini 6

Note the untouched and near NOS case and the very sharp edges with a clear lack of facet............ looking more conclusive to me by the day and thanks again for the amazing like

(also as a side note its interesting to see how many of them have had replacement dials and in some cases 861 movements fitted)

Lovell Gemini 12 (105.003-64)




Stafford Gemini 6 (105.003-64)

 

Gordon Copper: Gemini V 105.003-64

Again note the nice sharp edges, also on the reverse the flat area at the rear of the lugs is much smaller than the 105.003-65

 

Found a few more 64's with exactly the same features and sharp lugs. Is there anyone out there on the forum who has a 64 with bevel edges. Really hoping to reach a consensus conclusion

 

Bravo for your tenacity on this. Even if a few double-bevel '64's show up, I'm convinced more that ever that the single-bevel style would be representative of those marked '64.