Dear speedmaster-experts,
I have been reading on this forum for quite a while and decided to make an account for my question/issue. I know that on this forum there is enough knowledge to help me out.

Yesterday I went off to buy my first vintage speedmaster. I had the opportunity to buy this 105.012-66 CB unpolished from the first owner. The watch was looking decent for a piece this old. Unfortunately the number of the movement (24.06X) didn't match the movement number a 66 CB should have (24.533 - 25.448).

According to the owner Omega might used a later movement number for his watch. The case was definitely a CB. Omega couldn't provide an extract of the archives for some odd reason. Could anyone tell me if there is a possibility that Omega put a wrong movement number in the watch or what an other possibility could be? I didn't buy the watch yesterday after a long long journey because I wasn't sure about this whole situation. What's your opinion?

 

watch looks great! only hands looks like have been relumed (maybe I am wrong).
I think you have all you need for free..
date and place of delivery..
reference is on your backcase!
enjoy the watch!

 

A wild guess: Late production '65 cased in CB or an early production 145.012..cased in CB? Delivery date and serial point more towards the second option, but as said, guessing.
If Omega can't confirm, it might be due to the difference of watch reference and the serial associated. Do you have any solid proof that the seller is the first and only owner btw?

 

My guess, it was in a 145.006 or similar and swapped later during service..

 

worst case, a Seamaster movement..

 

Not a solid solid proof as in a original bill, but the owner did gave me detailed information how he funded the watch and what his situation was at that moment. I am pretty sure considering, the circumstances, that he indeed is the first owner.

What would that do in terms of value/pricing? Would you still advice me to buy it or shall I leave it? The owner is going to contact Omega too, to get this sorted out somehow.

 

leave it, I will buy it..

 

Maybe someone misread an 8 or 9 for an 0. Easily done if your eyesight isn't 20/20.

 

I've personally seen the movement numbers.

 

Hello
This is the tipical case of an "hole" in the Omega archives that can happen sometimes.
Omega archives are based also on microfilms and papers and sometimes they could not be clear. Then is not possible for Omega to collect all the information related to a specific serial number and reference. Probably they have found the invoice of this serial number and they can only confirm that the watch was delivered to Belgium in a specific date but no information about the reference related to this watch.
A hole in the archives in general does not mean that the watch is not correct but only a lack of information. If you call directly Omega, probably you can get more information.
About the Omega serial numbers, I suggest do not consider any strict rule as valid. All tables are to be considered as indicative. This is my personal experience.

Best regrads
Massimo

 

+1
I have had similar experience twice - hole on the microfilm...

 

Lovely watch mate!. It's a funny old game this movement number range malarky.

I got in a right old state over my 105.012-65 movement because it seemed to fall into the 105.012-66 range, only to find that Moon Watch Only 2nd edition included a revision that meant it was correct for a 105.012-65.

Do we really think that on the 31st of December 1966 they through any 105.012-66 CB cases they had left in the bin? The funny thing is when you chat to people like Simon Freese or Tony Coe from STS, they don't sound half as concerned about these ranges as we seem to be.

 

I'd be concerned here.

A serial number slightly out of range maybe a genuine outlier, however, a serial that's half a million out of range, in a watch that has a nice bezel, but a dial that appears to have lost much of the lume, possibly has relumed hands and a slightly polished case, would make me worry about a movement swap as part of a restoration, or a full on franken.

The fact that Omega can't issue an extract, on its own isnt necessarily a show stopper, but coupled with the above, would make me think very hard.

 

I find curious that the serial number is half a million earlier than generally believed correct but the date of delivery stated by omega is quite late. I think there may be honest watches which contradict the tables and franke watches which respect them.

 

Exactly. This is why you need to consider all other evidence as well as movement number and satisfy yourself as to the likiihood of everything being correct.

 

I am by no means an expert, but the numbers don't lie. There is overlap for the serial # 2406 6xxx with 3 models, 105.003-65, 105.012-65, and the 145.012-67. They all surround or overlap the 105.012-66. Since humans never make mistakes, you think you can actually say this movement was never in a 105.012-66CB? I do not agree with your assumptions, because the numbers don't lie. Humans do make mistakes and it is very plausible that this movement could have originated in this 105.012-66 case.

According to Speedmaster 101:

105.003
Produced in 1963 to 1965

• -63 2052 1xxx – 2052 6xxx
• -64 2052 7xxx – 2282 7xxx and 2208 9xxx
• -65 2282 7xxx – 2544 6xxx
  

105.012-64
2052 7xxx – 2282 5xxx

105.012-65
2282 5xxx – 2452 7xxx

105.012-66
2453 xxxx-2544 xxxx

145.012
Produced in 1967-1969
2406 xxxx – 27xx xxx

 

The problem with that theory is thst MWO suggests that movements weren't released perfectly chronologically, but in batches. I assume this OP serial falls outside of the known batch for 012-66 CB's.

Also, I'm not saying the OP serial/movement definitely isn't original. I'm saying given valid concerns over the serial, coupled with Omega being unable/unwilling to offer an extract (which is unusual for this period, although they have been known to respond like this if the given serial doesn't match the provided reference), it would make me think very, very hard about whether to buy this watch it wait for another.

 

I agree, but we don't know the price, and since it is an outlier, it should be below the market.

 

FWIW I have seen a 105.012-66 CB with serial# 2406XXXX with an Extract of Archive saying the watch was delivered in 1968.

 

Hi td69,

That would be very interesting! Can you share a bit more on where you have seen this Extract? Do you have a picture of it, by any chance?