Good evening,

what do Speedmaster experts think about this one?

I'd say it's a 145.022-71 but with a replaced bezel, is it?

Thanks, Roger

 

It’s hard to tell if the dial has a step. At least on my phone. Can you clearly see it?

 

Fonts wrong for a step dial. That’s an 80’s dial. No serif DNN also 80’s.

so it’s just a 145.022 from the 80’s as it is presented.

 

Caseback notches are too big for a -71.

 

Early '90s - either one of the last 145.022s or one of the earlier 3590.50s

 

Nice yellow lume for a 90s piece. Too bad the case isn't sharper.

 

The only thing visible to suggest -71 or before is the pointy subdial hands. -74 and later would have more blunt tips.

 

If the bracelet is period correct, puts it at 89-96

 

? Never heard that one.

 

I concur this is not a 145.022-71.

And regardless of the watch ref. it looks totally overpolished.

 

I think from early 90s. Dial is from 90s, and I think caseback is from early 90s. Same with bezel. If you have serial, try IloveMySpeedmaster.com and see what it tells you. Serial is on the lug.

 

You can just make out a serial number on the lug by the "812"

 

Hello!
If you can please provide us the movement first number we could try to understand the batch production

 

Thank you all. The watch is offered at ebay.de as a 145.022, but the seller doesn't show a picture of the movement. In any case, I won't go for it and wait for a better option.

 

It still a 145.022 technically.... What do you think is wrong with it?

it’s just a late tritium piece.

 

you must be about 30 years younger than me, I can't make it out. I can't hear very well either.

 

The 812 on the right side seems a lot more distinct than on the left side.

It's a pity there aren't better photos, as it looks like the side of the watch without the pushers has a nice curve to it, but the side with the pushers seems straight, as if it were over polished...

 

yup 812 end links and you can faintly see a serial on the upper right lug if you look hard.

 

I didn't think you were THAT old.

 

I forget the source that came from, it was someone around here I think, but it's also been from observation. I don't have pictures on me now, but look for yourself and the difference is clear. Some subdial hands have noteably sharper points. Every -69 or before which I have a relatively high confidence of being original all have sharp subdial hands. You're the the resident 145.022 guy around here, so maybe you can throw some cold water on the idea, but from memory most high-confidence later 70's I have seen have blunted sub hands... Harder to say for -71's, since I see fewer of them. Hardly foolproof science, but something to look at...

edit: now that I'm googling, there seem to be some short-S dials examples with sharp sub hands. More data is probably necessary to have any reasonable confidence in the theory... But to be sure, there two styles of hands, and I have not seen any blunted hands prior to -69. None of this has much bearing on the OP's piece, which very likely looks to be 90's.