http://www.ebay.com/itm/OMEGA-Speed...twatches&hash=item417c54318b&autorefresh=truePurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network I've NEVER seen a "145.012-68", but indeed, that's what the caseback says. Has anybody seen a -68 before? I've seen a lot of 145.012-67s - and my -67 has a date of production late June 1968 per the archive extract. I assumed that all 145.012s were -67s, regardless of whether they were made in 1967 or 1968.
Don't recall seeing a 145.012-68. But as the case back doesn't look fake, I'd have to assume that some do exist. But as you've probably noticed, the difficulty with this particular watch is that the tachy ring, hands and dial are indistinguishable from later 145.022's so it's only the 26M 321 movement and the case back that really help date the watch - assuming it's not a put-together.
Apparently this is an accepted final range for 145.012 production (and if that paperwork in the auction is genuine, that would confirm it). More reading on these late 321s here: http://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/mo...5-012-68-c-321-speedy-200641-post1430223.html Best, T.
Per above comments...Could also be why this price seems higher than I'd expect. Inspect carefully, those hands and movement, you should.
Interesting yes, that a 145.012-68 exists. I have not seen one before. however this is not an original watch, and so everything must be taken under advisement. If the watch were presented with period correct dial, hands and bezel it might be more plausible. However it has obviously been "restored". I hate these kind of watches, carelessly buffed and pimped by dealers who think they know. Listen, they can do what they like, just please stop selling them as original. I am very skeptical of the knowledge of omega letters from 2003. They meant well, but experience has shown me they had more enthusiasm and desire to please than actual knowledge. Perhaps if that book ever comes out we might know more, but for now, a painted logo dial and a modern bezel on a 321 means it's a parts watch in terms of valuation.
The watch in question is my property. These were the hands that came with the watch, including the sweep. The hour/minute hands have been relumed (purchased like this) while the sweep is original. I could have replaced them or put vintage lume but i left it exactly as it came in my possession; and what amazes me is the short lume size hour hand compared to the rest. I strongly believe that hands and dial are original to the watch. The bezel / insert may be a vintage replace (1969-1990 version) ?! A while ago i've mentioned Omega provided late 321 Speedmasters with painted Omega logo dials. The watch in question was delivered to Hong Kong in Feb. 1969. Some may think that most of the 145.012 ref.'s may look the same: Most... but not all. I was a bit intrigued myself about the dial and hands on my specimen, until i found this one (left, presented on WUS a couple of years ago): ...same bezel, same hands set including sweep, same dial. It's either a 26.559.* or a 27 mill serial number while mine is a 26.553.* In 1968 Omega was selling both c. 321 and c. 861. At least two other printed logo dial versions cal. 321 are known. The ST 145.012-68 cal. 321 racing dial: Notice the dot at 90 bezel and the sweep for a 321. And ST 145.022-68 cal. 321 APOLLO: Again the sweep for a 321. Then worth mentioning this ST 145.022-68 cal. 861 applied logo dial, that was sold in April 1971. Notice the serial # 31 Mill. Notice the dial, dot at 90 bezel and sweep hand for a -68 ref. Then compare to this ST 145.022-69 cal. 861, serial # 29 Mill. And finally see this ST 145.022-69 Notice the dot above 90 bezel and the sweep seconds. In short, Omega did not follow a specific pattern in assembling Speedmasters.They went back and forward with case refs. and we sometimes see a big discrepancy between the serials and case refs. This also happens to parts like: sweep hands, dials, movement extension rings, movement dust covers, crowns, pushers and maybe others (ie. bracelets). Finally, the price is according to Omega Mania and Isnardi, for the year ref. and rarity. Hope this helps. /F
The hand lume has always been the longer lume in the standard models. Only variances have been seen in the special little releases they did but on a standard 145.012 or 145.022 I would expect it to be the longer lume.
Nice observation, still correct for the watch. I had the same impression at first but after i saw a couple more for the ref. i knew it was original to the watch.
Look, all I am saying is that, as a person who regularly pays huge premiums for rare speedmasters this one doesn't even get me at all. The only thing interesting about this is the case back. While I do not question the integrity of Mr Fantastic, someone has swapped parts on this watch like a meccano set. Not for one minute do I think this dial and this handset was on it when it left the factory. Even if it was, then in value it less than a standard 145.012 - you just have too, look at the dial, hands and bezel! There are simply too many uncertainties for me to value this as an original rare 145.012-68. long quotes from Mr Isnardi's book doesn't cut any ice with me. This is the man who thinks ACP on a dial stands for association of chief of police. So forgive me if I don't take the rest of his mostly excellent book as gospel.
Transitional periods tend to bend the "rules" and so you tend to see a lot of anomalies among watches produced during these periods, i.e transitional watches. No dog in this hunt but just sayin'. Best, T.
This dial is not transition. After the last with applied logo, there is the one found on 145.022-69 with step dial and medium S, then the same but with flat dial, found on 145.022-74 and part of the 145.022-76. Then only comes the one with tall S...
Now that is a solid criteria. Dial font chronology -- if you can establish it -- is definitely a key indicator of period correct, i.e. if it's not with a year or so of the transition in question, then you've proven a replacement. Best & well done, T.
I have an original 145-012-68 SP. My serial # 26553050 is only 464 earlier than the one being talked about. I purchased it a few years back and if the seller gets even close to what they are asking, then I made out like a Bandit!
This watch is probably the best comparison we have to the watch in the eBAY auction. Being only 464 earlier than the watch in question it strongly suggests that the dial and bezel on the eBAY watch had been replaced at some point and not original to the watch. As always, there is no way to be 100% sure, but this would be strong enough evidence for me.
![[IMG]](proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fomegaforums.net%2Fattachments%2F47985%2F&hash=946b45888f3e37adadc25e749e140779)
