There are transitional 145.022-69 with AML-dial. I have one myself, bought from the first owner. DO90 bezel is the original bezel to it.

Offer her 4500$ with regard to the later bezel, and that the original one is very costly

It´s a nice watch, great dial and what looks like an unpolished case

 

I did not know that.

 

I would pass too

 

From Speedmaster101:
"I have see a Transitionals with -69 stamped in the back. I now believe that if a watch has the rest of the characteristics, including the serial, then if it has a -69 back it has the incorrect back. All Transitional should have a DO90 bezel."

Can anybody confirm one or the other?

 

Neither did anybody else.

I guess MWO is also wrong

 

I hear you. Guess I'll just apply the Occam's Razor principle, i.e. let this watch pass.

Care to comment on this @marturx ?

 

Didn´t know they were in dispute/ doubt

I´ll order an Extract from the Archives for mine, and we`ll see

10 years ago, the Ultraman was in dispute too, among collectors

 

Do it today!

 

Can you get a close up shot of the original crown which was replaced? I see it in the assortment of items which were swapped, this could be another clue. Transitional '68s have different crowns than '69s.

I can't comment on the existence of a Transitional '69, but like some have said on this thread, it is a valuable watch. Worst case, it's a '69 with a '68 dial, a very nice case and a near mint DNN. The hands match the condition of the dial and complement each other quite nicely. I wonder if the hands are replacement?

The upper bound for a '69 w/DNN is ~$6K (collector condition), which is close to current ask. It's a bit rich in my opinion given what we know, but I wouldn't kick it out of bed either. Be patient and do further research, you might surprise yourself in the end.

Best of luck and keep us posted.

 

I had a Speedmaster with AML dial, DON bezel, very early serial number and a -69 caseback. I thought that the caseback may have been swapped at some point, or worse still, the whole watch may have been a franken. I decided to get an Extract to determine what I had. It showed a 145.022 / 861 with a production date of 8th December 1968, not what I was expecting, as the serial number was lower than a 145.021 / 321 that I knew of, so I was anticipating an early 1968 production date.
Obviously this still doesn't prove anything about the caseback, except raises the possibility that, by December of 1968, the -69 casebacks may have already been on hand. We can assume the MWO position, that for some unknown reason all such watches have incorrect casebacks, but I'm not 100% persuaded. It would be interesting to see production dates for these and if they tend to be late 1968.

 

There are always exceptions it seems (and these exceptions should at least come with DON's imho ).

The only skin in this game I have is as a courtesy to my fellow collectors (you guys writing, as well as the others I have learnt from, and good honest people who have yet to be bitten), as on this public of forums the leaches/sharks/miscreants are also lurking in the background, the last thing I will do is assist in enabling more of this :

https://omegaforums.net/threads/omega-105-012.70164/#post-883788

Without a doubt I would not spend my hard-earned cash on something not 100% correct.

Have a great Sunday folks

PS: 'Buy the seller' seems appropriate here.
PPS : this is hardly comparable to Ultraman

 

Totally agree. DON bezels ran on into many '69 examples, so I would always consider a '68 with DNN as an early service bezel.
To put this in perspective, I bought the Dec 1968 Speedy with the '69 caseback on TZ for $1075USD, at a time when Transitional Speedmasters were not commanding a premium price. It was good value for a used but not abused watch. However, it had been listed for a couple of weeks by a regular seller (he was asking $1175) so wasn't being pounced on. Before it arrived I accepted that it may well be a franken, but, on arrival, it appeared to have never been serviced at all. No traces of any service mark inside the caseback and no tool marks anywhere on screws etc. There just seemed to be no logical explanation for the caseback having been changed at any stage.

 

And you no longer have it? Sounds like a keeper!

$1075 ... makes me want to ...

 

I let it go when I picked up another, nicer one, this time with a -68 caseback and a virtually unmarked DON. Both watches were without bracelets and, judging by the rear of the lugs, the one I have now never did have a bracelet fitted.

 

Just to satisfy my curiosity: Didn't all '68s originally come mounted on bracelets?

 

No idea. The extract that I had for the first one specifically stated bracelet not mentioned, or bracelet not recorded. I haven't bothered to get an extract for my current one.
For the record, the second Transitional, the one I still have, cost me $1800AUD (£1125 GBP) in August 2011.

 

FWIW: My Uncle was an Omega Ad and he often received Speedmasters with no bracelets then he would attach the bracelets he previously received in bulk from Omega before he put them out in his display case. I've come to understand this was very common back in the day.

 

I also think that practice may have varied from one country to another, depending on import taxes etc, where there were locally produced Omega bracelets for some markets, e.g. Mexico.

 

I also think that practice may have varied from one country to another, depending on import taxes etc, where there were locally produced Omega bracelets for some markets, e.g. Mexico.