Agree, that does look like a typical, non-bevel '64 case...rather than a beveled one, that has been re-finished. However, and I will admit straight away that this is over my pay-grade (no MWO), the extract shows a date of production that is a month away from 1966. Don't know where the serial number fits in. A late '63 with one of the newer case-makers cases?

Edit: checked Speedmaster 101; 22824X does appear as starting 1965 production, so last of the '64 cases, with an earlier back?

 

Michael e may of course have a point. M'bob also. However, I was told my resent purchase had problems due to the fact my case surround was probably from a '64 with no facets and indeed may be madly 'filed'?. The movement is a 24m number and most likely a 65?

 

Yes, withdrawn?, my case surround and 63 case back. What's going on? Are bothe of our speediest Frankenstein or was there a bunch of random parts at the factory at the time?. Why would so many people make Frankenstein using seamingly scarcer case backs?.

 

Sorry for above....(I won't use 'predictive text' again!)
Just to recap, I'm seeing many examples out there with '63 case backs, described as '63 watches with serial movements of '64 and on. Most, I am told probably couldn't be '63's as they shouldn't have 'T's unless asymmetrical (ie. added by singer) to the dial. As with mine.
My recent piece seems now to be more in line with a '64 (case surround) as described in this 'thread', not a badly filed down example. The lustre on the rear of the lugs doesn't looked touched although someone has overdone the 'lug tips'.
Is there a possibility that the factory used up leftover components sometime after '65, making some of these strange 'frankens' somewhat more legitimate?. example. '63 case back, now known '64 case surround and a movement (24m) straight out of stock.
It just seems uncanny that the 'franken' builders out there all seem to have spare '63 case backs instead of (up until now) using a know doubt more common 103.003-65 case back to make a 'correct' watch?.
Just a thought!

 

Thanks to Omega's 2020 "321 Ed White", I've become quite interested in the original and have tried to get up to speed regarding the 105-003 "variants". Luckily I've got this awesome forum as well as MWO's excellent Speedmaster reference books (1st & 2nd Ed.) to quench my thirst for info Having access to multiple references does however sometimes raise even more questions...

So this thread piqued my interest and of course I expected to find some form of confirmation in MWO's reference but instead, they have only classified one case for all pre-professional Speedmasters, one with "a thin bevel" ...:


c/o Moonwatch Only, 2nd Ed.

So I assume they were unable to verify the possibility of two different bevel styles and decided to go with another explanation... . In contrast though, they were also unable to establish the case manufacture for the '65. If it was indeed another manufacturer then the possibility of two distinct bevel types would make a lot more sense.


c/o Moonwatch Only, 2nd Ed.


Lastly, I didn't see anyone suggest the possibility that the less-common bevel style is due to some short-term manufacturing deviation (aka "bad batch" or batches)...

 

MWO book is already in its 3rd (revised) edition and the authors did not bother to add these new facts, or maybe they even don´t know yet...

 

Almost a year since the last post on this subject: has the collective wisdom come to a further consensus? Are ALL -64 Ed Whites bezel-less, or just some proportion?

 

Why should they have no bezels?

I guess you meant facets/bevels/chamfers on the lugs - right?

 

I, for one, have not seen a original 1964 Ed White case with bevels. But all have bezels

 

There has been the addition of Omega’s head of design saying that, in the course of planing and designing the new cal.321B, they discovered” the cases were identical, without any bevels, for all pre-professionals - and that any bevels to non Ed Whites were, they learned, put there by service centers.

This assertion I add for the record, not as gospel, because there is some agreement that Omega’s assertion is incorrect. (I’d leave @M’Bob and others to more quickly and accurately flesh that out.)

 

Yes, have heard this before (and is on some thread, somewhere), and is highly unlikely.

There are some ‘63’s, and a plethora or ‘65’s with bevels, and they all look pretty close to each other (taking after-sales polishing into account) to make the likelihood of some mad, around-the-clock bevel-adder just really unlikely in my book.

Edit: you’re talking about non-Ed Whites, but holds true nonetheless. And, somehow, the mad-beveler missed all the ‘64’s...

 

Yes, precisely - Omega rep’s statements DO confirm that Omega believes all Ed Whites were without bevels, though the credibility of that confirmation is called into question by their view that the non-Ed’s also did not have bezels.

 

What I find interesting about this whole issue is that it is pretty much way out of the grey area: either seasoned collectors, with decades of collective experience and study have it wrong...or the company does. Somebody’s got a big heaping of crow to eat...

 

Here is the video in question. If I remember correctly the assertions are somewhere around the 8min mark

 

Oh jeez. Yes, meant to write fader-less.

 

You meant bevels (or facets)— seems I accidentally infected the dialogue.

 

I wrote one of each to make you feel at home and not take sides

 

Facet-less!

 

Closer to the 5 minute mark. If he is being literal, Omega took ONE “untouched” first gen speedmaster case “from a collector” as their model and extrapolated that all cases should therefore have no bevel. Seems highly unlikely given the evidence at hand.

 

Yes, if literal they at most discovered not all had bevels.

Meanwhile though, this is also Omega admitting that the FOIS bevel is ... off