Speedmaster 145.022-74 Dial Question

Foo2rama · Mar 23, 2019

swish77
Many thanks. So, it sounds as if the -74 case back is definitely wrong for the serial number, but the question remains whether this watch would originally have had a C2 or C3 dial. Sounds as if it's right on the edge.

It is currently acceptable, but it is outside what my data suggests. As this watch has been obviously serviced at this point it cannot be a data point to change what my data suggests.

At this time my data has not been reviewed by either of the Bible’s in regards to this. Additionally it’s not a particularly sexy sub reference so there is little chance the authorities will change their phrasing on acceptable dials on the -76.

On the other hand the difference is extremely minor...

OMEGuy · Mar 23, 2019

I have seen some other watches with later dial and movement, but -74 caseback before. Are they all wrong?

Here is the link to the watch the OP posted above:

https://paul-sanders-nvrx.squarespace.com/new-products/1978-omega-speedmaster-moonwatch-145022

The watch looks legit (without later replacement parts) to me.

As far as I have learned, in the past, OMEGA used to mix up parts or use for current production what was at hand. Why not in case of the 145.022-74?

Foo2rama · Mar 23, 2019

OMEGuy
I have seen some other watches with later dial and movement, but -74 caseback before. Are they all wrong?

Here is the link to the watch the OP posted above:

https://paul-sanders-nvrx.squarespace.com/new-products/1978-omega-speedmaster-moonwatch-145022

The watch looks legit (without later replacement parts) to me.

As far as I have learned, in the past, OMEGA used to mix up parts or use for current production what was at hand. Why not in case of the 145.022-74?

that watch is clearly a a -78 with the wrong caseback. That is not a period where that back could appear on that serial number and dial.

hands also appear missmatched....

OMEGuy · Mar 23, 2019

Foo2rama
that watch is clearly a a -78 with the wrong caseback. That is not a period where that back could appear on that serial number and dial.

hands also appear missmatched....

I basically agree with what you stated above, but how can you tell for sure that it's impossible OMEGA used -74 cases in production a few years later?

Foo2rama · Mar 23, 2019

OMEGuy
I basically agree with what you stated above, but how can you tell for sure that it's impossible OMEGA used -74 cases in production a few years later?

Nothings impossible, highly unlikely most definitely, assumed incorrect must definitely.

dennisthemenace · Mar 23, 2019

OMEGuy
I share your opinion...

But to be sure, you would have to order an Extract.

And even if the EOA stated that this watch is a -76, I think it would be worth trying to find a matching caseback... The watch looks beautiful IMO.

BTW: What's the price for it?

An extract will state it's a 145.022, nothing more.

OWa · Mar 24, 2019

dennisthemenace
An extract will state it's a 145.022, nothing more.

True, but I would be curious about the exact production date of this watch. I think that an extract is a great thing. I even like the waiting for the result. You ask yourself the following questions during the process:
- Will extract data be available?
- Is the movement serial correct for this watch reference?
- Where has it been delivered to?
- Anything special about the watch? ( e. g. military provenance)
- Has ot been delivered with a braclet? If so, which braclet?
- ...?

For me this is additional fun after a purchase.

OMEGuy · Mar 24, 2019

dennisthemenace
An extract will state it's a 145.022, nothing more.

Correct. Thank you for putting this straight... 🤦

OMEGuy · Mar 24, 2019

Foo2rama
that watch is clearly a a -78 with the wrong caseback.

Foo2rama
Nothings impossible, highly unlikely most definitely, assumed incorrect must definitely.

There is another 145.022-74 with 39,92 mio. serial and C3 dial on C24:

https://www.chrono24.com/omega/vintage-speedmaster-moonwatch-145022-74-st--id10405838.htm

I think it's highly unlikely to find two -78 with wrong casebacks and similar design whithin ten minutes. But it's possible, obviously.

So, including the OP's watch, there are at least three -74 with a 39,92 mio. serial number and a C3 dial.

I wonder how many watches with similar characteristics does one have to see, to consider them being legit?

OWa · Mar 24, 2019

OMEGuy
There is another 145.022-74 with 39,92 mio. serial and C3 dial on C24:

https://www.chrono24.com/omega/vintage-speedmaster-moonwatch-145022-74-st--id10405838.htm

I think it's highly unlikely to find two -78 with wrong casebacks and similar design whithin ten minutes. But it's possible, obviously.

So, including the OP's watch, there are at least three -74 with a 39,22 mio. serial number and a C3 dial.

I wonder how many watches with similar characteristics does one have to see, to consider them being legit?

Many 145.022 that got a dial exchanged during service would most likly have been fitted with a C3 dial between mid 77 and 1990. This dial has been used for a long period and is not a really good indicator in my opinion.

Banner Roar · Mar 24, 2019

If you have not bought it yet I would not. Wait for another with a dial and movement number that are more acceptable as a 74. Then if you ever look to sell it there would not be any question of it's correctness. I really like my 74.....

swish77 · Mar 24, 2019

Banner Roar
If you have not bought it yet I would not. Wait for another with a dial and movement number that are more acceptable as a 74. Then if you ever look to sell it there would not be any question of it's correctness. I really like my 74.....

With the 145.022 I posted, it seems as if it’s really just an issue with a mismatched case back, not the dial. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, a C3 dial could be seen in a Speedmaster with a mid/late 1977 production, which is the estimate for when that Speedmaster was produced. The problem would be if the Omega extract came back with an early 1977 production, which would indicate that the dial might have been replaced at service.

OMEGuy · Mar 24, 2019

OWa
Many 145.022 that got a dial exchanged during service would most likly have been fitted with a C3 dial between mid 77 and 1990. This dial has been used for a long period and is not a really good indicator in my opinion.

I was referring to movement serial number range, case reference and dial. These are in total three characteristics that I believe to be good indicators, especially in this particular combination.

bikehomero · Mar 24, 2019

Looking again to the first foto of the caseback, I'm thinking the -74 is done later on. Font looks different and the "-" is not accurate. In the second foto of a members caseback it looks different. As well in my 74 it looks as it was made in one step:

But it is HF stamped on OPs caseback. As far as I remember 74 was the last made HF cases, isn't it?

swish77 · Mar 24, 2019

bikehomero
Looking again to the first foto of the caseback, I'm thinking the -74 is done later on. Font looks different and the "-" is not accurate. In the second foto of a members caseback it looks different. As well in my 74 it looks as it was made in one step:

But it is HF stamped on OPs caseback. As far as I remember 74 was the last made HF cases, isn't it?

Good observation about the engraving looking different. Not sure what to make of that.

Regardless, it would seem the watch should have a 145.022-76 case back anyway.

OMEGuy · Mar 24, 2019

swish77
Good observation about the engraving looking different. Not sure what to make of that.

Regardless, it would seem the watch should have a 145.022-76 case back anyway.

Here is the picture of the caseback you posted above. Looks different as well / matches that of your watch.

swish77 · Mar 24, 2019

OMEGuy
Here is the picture of the caseback you posted above. Looks different as well / matches that of your watch.

Yes, the engravings look a little different between those case backs and the other one posted by bikehomero, but I don't think we can expect modern-day machine perfection in the mid-'70s. Also, these -74 case backs were engraved/stamped over a period of a couple of years, so presumably there could be subtle differences.

bikehomero · Mar 24, 2019

Wasn't the requested one this one? The above is in my opinion in the field of normal, this one, however, not:

Foo2rama · Mar 24, 2019

OMEGuy
I was referring to movement serial number range, case reference and dial. These are in total three characteristics that I believe to be good indicators, especially in this particular combination.

Your wrong, and my database of 145.022-74 and -76 watches correlated by serial number, dial type, extract date and various details tells me your wrong.

The -74 caseback should not be on serial numbers that late.

swish77 · Mar 24, 2019

bikehomero
Wasn't the requested one this one? The above is in my opinion in the field of normal, this one, however, not:

Yes, that's the case back on the 399229XX serial watch with the C3 dial at the beginning of this thread. I agree the "74" looks a little odd, but perhaps it was just a sloppy engraving. Not sure.

Speedmaster 145.022-74 Dial Question

Foo2rama

OMEGuy

Foo2rama

OMEGuy

Foo2rama

dennisthemenace

OWa

OMEGuy

OMEGuy

OWa

Banner Roar

swish77

OMEGuy

bikehomero

swish77

OMEGuy

swish77

bikehomero

Foo2rama

swish77

Similar threads

105.012-65 Dial & Question

Omega Speedmaster 145.022-74 Lume Color

Seamaster 861 Dial Question

27xxxxxx serial Speedmaster 145.022-74's might be original after all

Dial dilemma: two 145.022-74: which should stay?

Omega Seamaster 125.003 Dial question.