A 145.012 with what looks to be a CB case. Hmm. And no caseback picture. Interesting times.

http://shop.hodinkee.com/collection...dmaster-reference-145-012?variant=17404656708

 

25M movement too, which would be on the really early side for these. I wondered why it was priced so sanely....

 

Perhaps a 105.012, labeled improperly and with a 145.012 case-back? That would be the easiest answer to me.. However I wouldn't expect Hodinkee to get the labeling wrong like that.. and also I would expect them to disclose the case-back being a 145.012 mismatch. This is speculation, and maybe I'm missing something. Hoping some experts will chime in.

 

If Hodinkee really thought it was a 105.012, the price would have been 50% higher. As-is, it was priced mid-range for a 145.012 - I don't think Hodinkee would sell anything at mid-range, do you?

This is speculation, yes - but the more I look at the case, the more I see a -66 CB with the wrong pushers, crown (& probably caseback). Which would mean this would be about a right-to-slightly-high-priced -66 CB in its condition.

 

Well that is true, I agree .

To be clear, CB cases weren't known to be used for the 145.012 reference... were they?

 

Very no.

EDIT: Though I wonder a bit since it has an early serial, but in range for a 145.012, if it was a leftover -66 case they just used for a 145.012.... but I think it's doubtful. Given the changes they made to the reference re. the pushers and such, I don't know if Omega would have done that.

 

I think the pushers are new replacement parts.
If I compare with my 145.012, the shape is not exactly the same.

 

It looks to be a polished down cb case. Regardless for their pricing it was pretty fair. Looks like a 105.012 possibly with a wrong caseback but they didnt show the inside of the back and the pushers were updated.

 

given the proximity of production dates, serial numbers etc, looks like a CB case with a 145.012 case back and pushers.... a rare find?

 

Well looks like someone thought enough of it to buy it. Not surprising really, how many clean 321 calibers with a correct bezel, dial, and hands do you really see out there anyway?

 

Agreed - service pushers are skinner and case is definitely a CB (which can also be noted on the difference in CB/HF "under-lug" differences that have been noted by keen eyes before moi) with a replacement case back. Hard to find the stubby pushers own their own but the case backs between the CB cases and the 145.012s aren't different from the outside that I've been able to tell, though I'd be happy to know otherwise if that's the case - no pun intended . They've been pretty honest in their store from what I've been able to tell so I'm hoping it was an honest mistake. Nonetheless, this was a bit of a doozy.

 

Of course this sold in a heartbeat with the "Hodinkee seal of approval".

- Here's an article on the greatest value propositions and just what to look for
- Completely unrelated, here is that exact same watch available from a place you can trust to know their stuff

meh

 

Oh yes, no doubt a nice 321 which is desirable these days. I just wish it was described properly.. And I can only hope the buyer wasn't a newbie who just trusted Hodinkee and bought it off perceived merits.

 

Louis from Hodinkee just responded to the Reddit thread here

 

Hi everyone,

I handle the vintage watches for Hodinkee, I replied a while back to the thread on our Longines but this time I will get way less geeky because you are absolutely correct, the watch had a 145.012 case back.
I have attached the picture below, as you will see the quality of my picture is pretty homemade as I quickly shot it while reviewing this Speedmaster prior to the listing.



I listed our watch as a 145.012 because of the three elements you pointed out above: the case back, the tall pushers, and the serial number.

As its serial is so early, I would not rule out that it originally came with the CB case, although I should clearly have mentioned it in the listing. As you also pointed out since the 105.012 is more pricey, using such a case as a spare part for a 145.012 would not be so smart financially - plus, obviously, we would never willingly feature it on the Shop.

Thanks for the heads-up, don't hesitate to reach out to my email [email protected] if you catch me doing any mistake or forgetting anything in the description as it happened here, and I am really sorry for that.
And I will be careful to include a (nicer) picture of the case back in future listing as it would have been precious here.

Louis

 

Wouldn't the HF hallmark on that caseback all but settle it that it's incorrect for the watch?

Seems way more likely to me that the pushers were replaced in a service and the caseback was misplaced at some point than it would that we somehow have an all-original CB cased 145.012 with an HF hallmark. Has anyone ever seen a CB cased 145.012 before? I'm admittedly fairly new here but I've been looking at 321 speedies for a while and have never seen that.

Either way, something weird is going on with this watch that should have been disclosed. Why didn't you order the extract on the watch before listing? Could have settled the whole thing before it ever started.

 

They went off of the caseback and not the serial plus case. This IMO is a 105.012 with a CB case with a 145.012 caseback and replaced pushers. It happens and they are trying hard to right their mistake. I'm sure if the buyer was to pull out of the purchase they would not call foul.

 

Good stuff here. Thanks Louis. We're all trying to learn and hopefully this will help us all in the future.

And yes I think Kringkily is 100% correct here.

 

I think the discussion here and over on /r/watches would make for the basis of a great post on Hodinkee - it could easily be framed in a "do your homework" or "even the best of us make mistakes" and explain the issues. It would be informative to lots and also help show the risks and diligence that go into watch collecting.

 

Agreed, if the 'experts' even have trouble identifying a reference then we all need as much help as we can get.