Forums Latest Auctions Members
  1. ewand

    ewand Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    626
    Likes
    2,709
    My Saleroom alerts went bananas this morning, as Watches of Knightsbridge's latest catalogue has been published. There are quite a lot of interesting-looking watches, though with pretty strong estimates and generally rubbish pictures (one or two photos of the face of the watch, no case back/movement shots, and often too washed out or over-exposed).

    This thread is just looking at the Speedmasters being offered.

    We know that WoK really, really doesn't like it when people discuss their watches online, so let's make sure we do a right good job of it here. I'm no expert when it comes to Speedmaster assessment, so please add your own comments and thoughts below...

    [EDIT - 20 March 2018]

    Well, WoK seem to be pretty good at producing estimates - most of the lots sold within or just above their estimated ranges. We could argue either that's because people believe the auctioneers and assume the estimates are what the watches are worth (so bid accordingly), or if the estimates are in fact a true measure of market value. I suppose one begets the other anyway. I'll update the headings for each of the lots below with £hammer, £final, $final, €final values.

    193 - 105.003-65 - est £6,000 - 8,000 -
    Hammer - £ 7,600 - Final - £ 9,424 / $ 13,194 / € 10,743
    [​IMG]
    Dial is described as "Original dial in good "tropical" condition" - I would say more like "rotten" than tropical. Hands missing paint & lume, rusty chrono hand... God knows what kind of state the movement is in.

    194 - 145.012-68 SP - est £5,500 - 6,500
    Hammer - £ 5,800 - Final - £ 7,192 / $ 10,069 / € 8,199
    [​IMG]
    I quite like this one - though I can't quite decide if the lume is largely missing or if it's just gone a less than pleasant colour. Are the pushers right?

    195 - 105.012-66 CB - est £6,000 - 7,000
    Hammer - £ 6,600 - Final - £ 8,184 / $ 11,458 / € 9,330
    [​IMG]
    Dial looks better than the -68 above but the hands are less good...

    196 - 145.022-69 - est £4,000 - 4,500
    Hammer - £ 4,000 - Final - £ 4,960 / $ 6,944 / € 5,654
    [​IMG]
    One of the earlier -69s, with a DON bezel, in "not too bad" condition. The above photo doesn't do many favours to the colour of the lume or the hands.

    197 - 145.022-69 with 220 misprint bezel - est £4,000 - 4,500
    Hammer - £ 5,500 - Final - £ 6,820 / $ 9,548 / € 7,775
    [​IMG]
    Same estimate as the lot 196... is a 220 bezel worth the same as a mid-condition DON?


    198 - 145.022-69 Straight Writing - est £4,500 - 5,000
    PASSED - I didn't see the auction live so don't know how far the bidding went
    [​IMG]
    At last! A Speedy on an original bracelet rather than a new leather strap or NATO... neither the watch nor bracelet look in particularly good condition, though the dial does look a bit nicer than the previous 2 lots.

    199 - Moon crater box ~1970 - est £1,500 - 2,0000
    Hammer - £ 1,500 - Final - £ 1,860 / $ 2,604 / € 2,120
    [​IMG]
    £2000 for a box? The world has indeed gone mad.

    200 - 145.022-74 - est £2,800 - 3,400
    PASSED - I didn't see the auction live so don't know how far the bidding went
    [​IMG]
    Looks like a nice example of a -74 - good even colour across the lume & hands. Only a single photo so WoK clearly feel they're doing enough for the £600-800 commission they'll charge against the estimate.

    More to follow.
     
    Edited Mar 20, 2018
  2. ewand

    ewand Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    626
    Likes
    2,709
    The pictures above, btw, are all inline from the online catalogue listing directly, not being copied here - a practice which is completely legal from a copyright point of view.
     
    kov, Davidt, eugeneandresson and 2 others like this.
  3. Screwbacks

    Screwbacks Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    493
    Likes
    291
    if the images are publicly available on line as published, they can be appended to or linked by way of reference. imo.
     
  4. tyrantlizardrex

    tyrantlizardrex C is NOT for "Lizard". Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    6,152
    Likes
    16,154
    None of them are the best of examples from the look of it.
     
  5. ewand

    ewand Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    626
    Likes
    2,709
    That's right - WoK got a bit antsy regarding hosting of their images on other sites, so I'm just making the point that the post above is merely referencing their already published images :)
     
  6. STANDY

    STANDY schizophrenic pizza orderer and watch collector Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    7,186
    Likes
    14,068
    Minute and second markers on the first one are too fresh for the dial.

    1 minute and 28 and 31 minutes the second markers are inconsistent to my eyes.
     
  7. Buck2466

    Buck2466 Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    742
    Likes
    3,412
    The chrono second hand is incorrect on the second pic of the 145.012-68. It should be the flat bottom. It was either replaced or the case back was. There have been discussions in the past about several case backs for sale with the 145.012-68 inscription. The serial number would easily give that away, as there was a very tight window of known serial numbers for this model.
     
  8. fibonacci086

    fibonacci086 Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    717
    Likes
    3,230
    Lot 193
    Dial: Original dial in good "tropical" condition.
    :whipped:
     
  9. ewand

    ewand Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    626
    Likes
    2,709
    Not necessarily - MWO lists the 145.012-68 as having either drop or flat chrono hand. THe 145.022-68 was flat only.
     
    Igora likes this.
  10. MaiLollo

    MaiLollo Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    1,228
    Likes
    3,332
    The first 69 is the best of the lot as far as I'm concerned (DON & dry brown dial).
    The 66 looks OK & 68 hasn't the best dial ever. The Ed White is disgusting, but in a weird way I like it :eek:
     
  11. MaiLollo

    MaiLollo Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    1,228
    Likes
    3,332
    Both can have both I think. But it would sound more logical for either to have the flat bottom since the 67s used most of the left over spear hands... My 012-68 has a flat bottom :)
     
    Caliber561 likes this.
  12. ewand

    ewand Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    626
    Likes
    2,709
    SM101 says the 145.022-68 (ie transitional) has spear or flat hands, but all of the photos show flat chrono hands. MWO 2nd edition says the 145.022-68 has C2 baton - Flat, whereas the 145.012-68 has C1 baton - drop or C2 baton - flat...

    I would have thought they used up the spear chrono hands in the last days of the 321, switched to flat bottom hands and stuck with them after the 861 came out. Unless anyone has a 145.022-68 with spear hand they know to be original?
     
  13. Buck2466

    Buck2466 Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    742
    Likes
    3,412
    I have always seen where the changeover started at the end of the 145.012-67 production and was completely changed to the flat bottom when production began on the 145.012-68. Some get the 012-68 and 022-68 confused.
     
  14. cristos71

    cristos71 Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    4,185
    Likes
    17,809
    Are WOK auctioning Speedmasters that they themselves own or auctioning consigned watches? They all seem to be in very similar condition and presented on very similar straps....coincidence?
     
    Dash1 likes this.
  15. eugeneandresson

    eugeneandresson Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    1,220
    Likes
    2,171
    Moss grows quite wildly in the tropics...from where I come from however there will be specks of yellow and orange among the green...
     
  16. ewand

    ewand Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    626
    Likes
    2,709
    Maybe they're all from the same consignor...
     
  17. Seacow

    Seacow Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    239
    Likes
    221
    Est is a bit on the high side IMO...
     
    Caliber561 likes this.
  18. Caliber561

    Caliber561 Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    220
    Likes
    115
    But nice pieces nonetheless (looking from the front at least)

    EDIT: After getting home and taking a look at the listings on a device that wasn't in the sunlight with low brightness, I see why I was the only one who thought the lot was decent. :whistling:
     
    Edited Feb 24, 2018
  19. padders

    padders Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    2,235
    Likes
    2,738
    You think? The EW looks terrible IMO. The 68 and 220 look OK I suppose.
     
    Cad290 likes this.
  20. Toishome

    Toishome Feb 24, 2018

    Posts
    578
    Likes
    1,278
    Those are the worst bunch I seen in a while ::puke::