- Posts
- 22
- Likes
- 70
Speedmaster 145.022-74 serial number question..
- Posts
- 2,054
- Likes
- 9,668
Toishome
·Seems like you already know the answer. Either the movement doesn't belong to the watch or the watch doesn't belong to the movement.
- Posts
- 24,263
- Likes
- 54,031
Dan S
·Are you sure? Can you post a photo of the movement showing the serial number clearly? It's a cal 861, I assume.
- Posts
- 22
- Likes
- 70
Wylie194
·Seems like you already know the answer. Either the movement doesn't belong to the watch or the watch doesn't belong to the movement.
I was hoping I might be be wrong as the -74 s/n seems to span over a period over the 70's. Shame though, as the dial is quite nice
Are you sure? Can you post a photo of the movement showing the serial number clearly? It's a cal 861, I assume.
Yes, the seller has the 861 movement picture and stated in text.
- Posts
- 24,263
- Likes
- 54,031
- Posts
- 22
- Likes
- 70
Wylie194
·
- Posts
- 18,202
- Likes
- 27,531
Foo2rama
··Nowhere near as grumpy as he used to be...That’s not a movement that would have been in a 1974 watch. That movement is clearly pre 1971 production as it has a metal brake which changed to Delrin in 1971.
The movement and rest of the watch are not original to each other.
Dial is clearly 1974-1977 production
Bezel is correct until the mid 80’s from 1969 ish.
Avoid the watch.
The movement and rest of the watch are not original to each other.
Dial is clearly 1974-1977 production
Bezel is correct until the mid 80’s from 1969 ish.
Avoid the watch.
- Posts
- 22
- Likes
- 70
Wylie194
·Thanks, great tip about the metal brake too !
- Posts
- 446
- Likes
- 1,722
WurstEver
·Late to the party, but I like the 70s stuff, so jumping in to support the views above. The -74s do carry a wide range of SNs, but not quite this wide.
Edit: By the way, aren't the sellers photos taken with a copy of MWO as a backdrop? I'd assume therefore they are aware of the mismatch 😕
Edit: By the way, aren't the sellers photos taken with a copy of MWO as a backdrop? I'd assume therefore they are aware of the mismatch 😕
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,457
- Likes
- 6,427
Aludic
··@SpeedyBirthYearInteresting one, @Wylie194. Agree with the others that this cannot possibly be right.
The (future) owner of this might want to look into this one: https://www.ebay.de/itm/Raro-Vintag...539176?hash=item28ac8bdd68:g:Q0MAAOSwT99eky95
This 145.022-68 offered has a much too recent serial number. Perhaps a swap would make two wrongs right.
(I am not related to the seller in any way)
The (future) owner of this might want to look into this one: https://www.ebay.de/itm/Raro-Vintag...539176?hash=item28ac8bdd68:g:Q0MAAOSwT99eky95
This 145.022-68 offered has a much too recent serial number. Perhaps a swap would make two wrongs right.
(I am not related to the seller in any way)
This website may earn commission from Ebay sales.
- Posts
- 22
- Likes
- 70
Wylie194
·
- Posts
- 18,202
- Likes
- 27,531
Foo2rama
··Nowhere near as grumpy as he used to be...Just came across this in the MWO book, could be interesting...
yeah and I disagree with 2 statements in that picture. If they ever state their proof of that I’ll agree. But my understanding is that was observed via caseback not an extract.
it also contradicts the problem of so many observed -74 step dials.
