All

I really could do with some help, really interested in this 145.022-69 offered by a fellow member FS - BEAUTIFUL OMEGA SPEEDMASTER REF. 145.022-69 ST | Omega Forums. Looks really original the challenge I am trying to reconcile is does it have its original Bezel.

It has a B2 DNN with a serial number of 30584409 (DNN) ? (estimated JULY 1970 – ilovemyspeedmaster)

If I consult Moonwatch only (3rd edition) Gregoire Rossier and Anthony Marquie it states

· With reference to a B2 “Nevertheless we have noticed that they are invariably fitted on watches with movement numbers from around 30.590.xxx”

· “The last of the 145.022-69 models seen with this bezel (B1) have movement numbers in region of 30.596.xxx”

(30.590.xxx equated to estimate of September 1970 and 30.596.xxx equates to October 1970 so looking like the switch was around September 1970. So against this it looks like this watch should really have a DON to be 100% original

However on Speedmaster 101 another obvious highly trusted source there is an example 145.022-69 – Speedmaster101

· “145.022-69 With a Chocolate dial. This watch has a DN90 bezel which is correct for its 3058xxxx serial”

So I am really confused

My question is do we think that the watch in question with a serial does have its original Bezel and the changeover in this period was not clear cut or should it really have a DON and it was more likely to have been changed to DNN as a service early in its life.

 

I wouldn't over think it nothing is exact when it comes to vintage watches

 

My speedmaster 305849xx has a DON bezel and extract from July 1970.

 

I'll just leave this here for people to believe or not believe as they want.

 

Watch looks nice. Unless you're specifically looking for DON I wouldn't be too worried about it. Plus that DNN bezel is in pretty good shape.

 

DON. No exceptions.

 

The changeover is very clear cut.
The evolution of the bezel is as follows: DON > DNN "220 Error" > DNN225.

The transition from the DON to the DNN "220 Error" happened around mid September 1970 (30.593.XXX serial number range).
The DNN "220 Error" made its exit in the first quarter of 1971 (around 31.003.XXX serial range) and replaced with the corrected DNN 225 which ran till the 1990's

*Keep in mind that the DNN "220 error" is a bezel that should have never existed.
It took Omega several months to catch the error and correct it to the DNN 225 (which it is what it should have been from the get go).

There are thousands of 145.022-69's out there. This is the most common "Pre-moon" Speedmaster reference.
That being the case, it is understandable that many of them were serviced and had their bezels replaced with the available service parts of the period (which were the DNN225 if the watch was serviced during the 70's, 80's, and early 90's).
Due to that, over the years seeing a DNN225 bezel on a 145.022-69 of any serial range has become "Correct" to many collectors.
In fact, a DNN bezel is correct for a 145.022-69 only when they are in the correct serial range; 31.00X.XXX and up.

 

Thanks for the insight, so it is interesting such a historically important watch such as this as flown on Apoloo17 for the flow tests with as serial number of 30.593.275 has a DNN 225 today should have had a 220 originally https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5945140. I do find it difficult to believe this watch was changed but as it has a mid eighties bracelet I guess is possible. Has made me rethink little that definition of "correct".
Thanks Michael

 

The bezel has definitely been replaced on this watch at some point.

I have in my archives a 145.022-69 with serial 30.593.573 which is 298 numbers after this Christies flown watch and it has the 220 error bezel.
The production date is September 29 1970. The corrected DNN225 did not exist yet at that time.

You can also tell that the Christies watch has been through an Omega Service Center sometime between the late 70's and early 80's by the service hand on the minute subdial.

 

Come on. You really think that this astronaut would have cared if they changed some worn parts when he had his watch serviced? "Oh no, don't make my watch as good as new again, I need to keep it all original for its historical significance."

 

Thanks Dan, no agree although if it were I I would have just put it in the draw and kept it as a souvenir of a trip! Made me re-think correctness more broadly as an example and learnt a lot from this thread.

 

Thank you, bought more clarity to me and I am sure many others

 

This is my watch.
Based on my own expertise and what speedmaster101.com thinks I described the DNN bezel as correct for the serial.
But I'll admit there are people with more expertise in this matter than me. I have no problem with that.
Bernard

 

I found that @speedy4ever at some point wrote the following:

More important is to consider the production date. Of the several hundreds 145.022-69 we have in our database, the relationship between production date and bezel type is rather clear:
- DON (type B1) until September/October 1970
- 220 (type B2bis) from end August 1970 to end December 1970 (possibly until January 1971 with new data we had, still to be verified)
- type B2 from November 1970

 

Hello All!

I found a 145.022-69 with a 220 bezel from a trusted local seller in Colombia where I'm from and it looks in good shape but the serial number is 31.317.xxx from what I can tell. Should I be alarmed by this in anyway? He sent me a couple of not so good pictures but will send it over soon. It has the original bracelet and box. What do you guys think? I'm new to speedmasters and would appreciate the insight.

 

Nice looking watch. Question is whether there is any ambiguity in the end of 220 bezels with SN 31.00x.xxx. If this is clear cut end of 220 bezel watches then yours must be a replacement, but it’s hard to believe that Omega would put 220 bezel as service replacement. But these bezels could be swapped at any time like changing hats, so all of this remains speculation in the end.
yours is a nice example and I would have no problem considering this to be at end of 220 run, but the experts may differ. Getting @ndgal or @Spacefruit to opine would be quite helpful.

 

It would be an outlier, but it also doesn't matter. Buy it if you like it and the price is good.