Thoughts on this refinished Speedy Mark II (and others!)

Nathan1967 · Nov 22, 2019

Thanks @Tet Yes, I agree with the points that you’ve made. There’s some great pointers there as to what to watch out for.

Yes, we see a lot of the “pebbly” rounded off cases, I also see a lot of cases where the facets on the flank of the case are wobbly or there is the overbrushing to give a poorly defined line as you have described. These are definite telltales for a poorly refinished case.

I guess where my train of thought was going was, are there tell tales on the Mk2 that would allow us to categorically state “This is an unpolished Watch”?
I know that this is an area of a lot of contention amongst Watch Collectors I see many ads on OF where the posters purposely steer clear of categorically stating “unpolished” because it’s more a matter of opinion than one of fact for many Watches.
As Mk2 owners if we could be more certain around a Watch being “unpolished” then that could have some real advantage to us as a group of collectors.

All the best

Nathan

johnnylarue · Nov 22, 2019

Nathan1967
A thread on polished vs unpolished MkII cases and what to look for might be educational and interesting!

Personally, I’d feel very brave to state a Mk2 Case was completely unpolished. I can spot a badly polished case, that’s very straightforward. But I find differentiating between an aged case that has been very well polished at some point and an unpolished Case a tough one. I’ve been led to believe that the tell tale is at the Lugs - there should be a fair bit of metal by right angle at the top of the lug space. Is the watch below unpolished? I don’t know! But to my eyes it looks like a good Mk2 Case should look.

If anyone can share the knowledge I think that would be greatly appreciated by others too.

I’ll chime in on this one. Two things stick out: for one, literally, the crystal is sticking out a bit too far from the case. They sit nearly (not quite) flush on untouched cases. Second is what I believe to be a common refinishing artifact: a scar that looks like a smoothed over crater (just left of centre on the lower bout on this one.) I’ve seen this kind of thing on a number of more obviously refinished cases and my guess is that’s the remnant of a scar that was too deep to be fully erased by the refinishing process.

For reference there’s a more honest, fresher ding further to the left. Notice the more defined edges and how it clearly bites into the brush marks.

That said this is still a good looking case and doesn’t seem to have lost much metal at all.

johnnylarue · Nov 22, 2019

Nathan1967
Thanks @Tet Yes, I agree with the points that you’ve made. There’s some great pointers there as to what to watch out for.

Yes, we see a lot of the “pebbly” rounded off cases, I also see a lot of cases where the facets on the flank of the case are wobbly or there is the overbrushing to give a poorly defined line as you have described. These are definite telltales for a poorly refinished case.

I guess where my train of thought was going was, are there tell tales on the Mk2 that would allow us to categorically state “This is an unpolished Watch”?
I know that this is an area of a lot of contention amongst Watch Collectors I see many ads on OF where the posters purposely steer clear of categorically stating “unpolished” because it’s more a matter of opinion than one of fact for many Watches.
As Mk2 owners if we could be more certain around a Watch being “unpolished” then that could have some real advantage to us as a group of collectors.

All the best

Nathan

I think the general consensus is that even unpolished watches can lose their brush marks with heavy wear. Fifty years of light friction against a shirt cuff will yield a result that’s not unlike that of a few seconds against a buffing wheel. Think of it as “polishing by 20,000 wears”. 😉

I ultimately decided I’d rather have a shiny case with faded brush marks than a refinished one because I feel like any significant reduction in mass or thickness effectively changes the shape and proportions of the watch, which to me is significantly worse than an altered surface finish. So sharp edges and a full chunky mass to me are closer to original. Obviously a matter of preference.

johnnylarue · Nov 22, 2019

And slightly OT: this 2014 model just popped up (pretty sure it’s a bogus listing) but I wanted to ask if anyone has ever seen such crazy faded hands on a 5-year-old watch before?

bunthit · Nov 22, 2019

@johnnylarue I saw that too and seller even sent a nice 7% off offer.

I was honestly very confused by the aging on it. The band looked fine for the new models but I have no idea how it got that faded looking and why such terrible photos.

Maybe it was found in the bottom of a lake or something?

johnnylarue · Nov 22, 2019

bunthit
@johnnylarue I saw that too and seller even sent a nice 7% off offer.

I was honestly very confused by the aging on it. The band looked fine for the new models but I have no idea how it got that faded looking and why such terrible photos.

Maybe it was found in the bottom of a lake or something?

Yeah I‘ve yet to see a MKII replica with a correct bracelet on it, and so there’s a *chance* its first owner just beat the crap out of his $4K+ watch—those cases do tend to record most of the bumps, dings and scrapes they encounter. Or maybe it was strapped to the back of an iguana and set free to wander the desert for five years?

Either way, some red flags (0% feedback seller, basically only two brutal photos) but, you know, the greater the risk, the greater the spoils, right? 😉

johnnylarue · Nov 22, 2019

With the disclaimer that I have no connection to the seller, I did manage to get a few more pics out of him and am throwing 'em up here for the curious. This much honest wear is hard to come by on such a young watch so it's hard to gauge what a fair price would be for it as other used examples are usually in nicer shape. But if it's genuine as I suspect it is, it could be a hell of a bargain. (That said, I haven't studied the replica scene for these, and those faded orange hands... 😕)

Nathan1967 · Nov 23, 2019

johnnylarue
I’ll chime in on this one. Two things stick out: for one, literally, the crystal is sticking out a bit too far from the case. They sit nearly (not quite) flush on untouched cases. Second is what I believe to be a common refinishing artifact: a scar that looks like a smoothed over crater (just left of centre on the lower bout on this one.) I’ve seen this kind of thing on a number of more obviously refinished cases and my guess is that’s the remnant of a scar that was too deep to be fully erased by the refinishing process.

For reference there’s a more honest, fresher ding further to the left. Notice the more defined edges and how it clearly bites into the brush marks.

That said this is still a good looking case and doesn’t seem to have lost much metal at all.

Well, you’ve got me thinking about your points @johnnylarue And I’m intrigued

Just for context, I owned this Watch a while back and sold it a couple of years ago. So I’ve no vested interest , I’m not a guru, I’m just keen to bottom out the question “What does an unpolished Speedmaster Mk2 Case look like?”

I’ve had a look at photos of when I bought it, the sellers pictures show a Watch where the crystal is sitting much lower in the case. I had a replacement fitted at service, which I think may be sitting higher due to either the thickness of the crystal itself or the “gasket” sitting underneath it.

See below pre service

Compared to the replacement crystal:-

For the record this Watch had a movement serial number of 3219xxx - so not a particularly early watch.

This Watch has the fattest “lugs” on a Mk2 that I have handled, by lugs I mean the entire area around the strap including the “hooded” bit - I’ve handled a fair few and seen quite a few more. Facets were well defined and ran in a true arc. Also look at the brushed area at the top of the arc of the facet- there’s plenty of room between this and the crystal - so my general impression of the case is “meaty”.
I take onboard the comment regards the ding at left of centre - I’m not sure, it’s just a ding and the case has many of these. Were they there before or after a polish - who knows.
With the above evidence, I’m not stating that this Watch is unpolished, I’m just offering it up as an example.
My questions are this-
- Does anyone have an example that they know to be unpolished?
- maybe Mk2 cases varied, just as Moonwatch cases varied over their production span? Some fatter, some thinner.
- does anyone else have any theories or facts to share?

BTW- I’m just curious, I love these watches, as do quite a few of you here. I’m trying to further the knowledge- I certainly don’t want to call anyone or their watches out. The start point for me in collecting is, What does good look like? Then work towards that.

If you want me to start a new thread I’m happy to do that! Just as I get to the bottom of this post - I realise I might be ruining yours @johnnylarue

All the best

Nathan

simonsays · Nov 23, 2019

Agree with all of the above from @Tet, and would just add an uneven thickness to the facet on the top of the case(by the crystal), making it slightly thinner in places, as if it was very slightly off centre on the lapping machine. Also the crystal could be too proud if material has been removed from the top.
Having said that, the skills of good case refinishers, and laser welding has made refinishes much better than they were 5 years ago. In the hand though even the best will have a giveaway some where, for example a perfect case with a worn logo on the case-back.

Tet · Nov 23, 2019

I'd have qualms about a professionally refinished case from the likes of STS, their work is amazing.

@Nathan1967 I know mine has not been polished but I don't have it with me at the moment, once I get it back from Simon Freeze I'll be happy to take some closer up pics at various angles if you'd like?

Nathan1967 · Nov 23, 2019

Tet
I'd have qualms about a professionally refinished case from the likes of STS, their work is amazing.

@Nathan1967 I know mine has not been polished but I don't have it with me at the moment, once I get it back from Simon Freeze I'll be happy to take some closer up pics at various angles if you'd like?

Thanks @Tet much appreciated. 👎

padders · Nov 23, 2019

I don't personally think the thickness of the crystal is a reliable metric for a refinished case. Crystals and cases vary. I think it better to look at the radial pattern for irregularity, the angle of the case sides (clue, they aren't at 90deg to the crystal) and the sharpness of the side bevelled facet. Only can an expert with a lapping machine really reproduce the sunburst on the bezel properly, if done any other way it will show under close scrutiny and if it were done the right way the you could argue it doesn't really matter anyway. FWIW I am pretty sure mine is not refinished. The sunburst is there and correct but very faint after years of wear but who's to say whether or not it got a factory refinish in the 70s or 80s, it would look very similar today I guess.

johnnylarue · Nov 23, 2019

Nathan1967
Well, you’ve got me thinking about your points @johnnylarue And I’m intrigued

Just for context, I owned this Watch a while back and sold it a couple of years ago. So I’ve no vested interest , I’m not a guru, I’m just keen to bottom out the question “What does an unpolished Speedmaster Mk2 Case look like?”

I’ve had a look at photos of when I bought it, the sellers pictures show a Watch where the crystal is sitting much lower in the case. I had a replacement fitted at service, which I think may be sitting higher due to either the thickness of the crystal itself or the “gasket” sitting underneath it.

See below pre service

Compared to the replacement crystal:-

For the record this Watch had a movement serial number of 3219xxx - so not a particularly early watch.

This Watch has the fattest “lugs” on a Mk2 that I have handled, by lugs I mean the entire area around the strap including the “hooded” bit - I’ve handled a fair few and seen quite a few more. Facets were well defined and ran in a true arc. Also look at the brushed area at the top of the arc of the facet- there’s plenty of room between this and the crystal - so my general impression of the case is “meaty”.
I take onboard the comment regards the ding at left of centre - I’m not sure, it’s just a ding and the case has many of these. Were they there before or after a polish - who knows.
With the above evidence, I’m not stating that this Watch is unpolished, I’m just offering it up as an example.
My questions are this-
- Does anyone have an example that they know to be unpolished?
- maybe Mk2 cases varied, just as Moonwatch cases varied over their production span? Some fatter, some thinner.
- does anyone else have any theories or facts to share?

BTW- I’m just curious, I love these watches, as do quite a few of you here. I’m trying to further the knowledge- I certainly don’t want to call anyone or their watches out. The start point for me in collecting is, What does good look like? Then work towards that.

If you want me to start a new thread I’m happy to do that! Just as I get to the bottom of this post - I realise I might be ruining yours @johnnylarue

All the best

Nathan

@Nathan1967, this thread is about as pure as a highway ditch in March—all mud, salt, oily soot and half-thawed road detritus is absolutely welcome. (Not to mention that your post was actually more on-topic than most of my own. 😁)

That’s a great point about the crystal height and it raises several questions (no pun intended): first of all, if replacement crystal heights vary in thickness and aren't necessarily 100% true to the original specs, then why the heck aren't collectors up in arms about this? Having put in some time as a Seiko freak I can attest to the fact that even a slight variance in a replacement part would be a non-starter for a lot of collectors, so I'm feeling a bit of culture shock here. Minor digression.

I've given the Fresh Gasket Theory some thought. I've only ever come across anecdotal accounts (i.e. from fellow enthusiasts) of genuine factory-fresh safe queens having crystals that sit "nearly flush" with the case. Granted, those original gaskets have been under compression for almost 50 years now, so it's entirely plausible that the crystal would have sunk a bit, are fresh gaskets thick enough to make a visible difference? This (from the Swiss seller I was negotiating with) is a great profile shot of a definitely unpolished MKII with a mostly disintegrated gasket. I'd call this "nearly flush":

Frustratingly, most archival photos from back then were shot head on, so it's nigh on impossible to gauge the original height of the crystal either way.

And finally, you're probably right about my nitpicking over that tiny left-of-centre crater in your initial photo. That was a reaction to others I've seen in which a mysteriously smooth pit shows up in an otherwise flawless brushed finish, but upon closer look that doesn't really look like it's the case here.

johnnylarue · Nov 23, 2019

padders
I don't personally think the thickness of the crystal is a reliable metric for a refinished case. Crystals and cases vary. I think it better to look at the radial pattern for irregularity, the angle of the case sides (clue, they aren't at 90deg to the crystal) and the sharpness of the side bevelled facet. Only can an expert with a lapping machine really reproduce the sunburst on the bezel properly, if done any other way it will show under close scrutiny and if it were done the right way the you could argue it doesn't really matter anyway. FWIW I am pretty sure mine is not refinished. The sunburst is there and correct but very faint after years of wear but who's to say whether or not it got a factory refinish in the 70s or 80s, it would look very similar today I guess.

I'm not sure the Swiss would have allowed cases to vary to the extent that the differences would be noticeable to the naked eye. I have a hard time picturing two Mark IIs side by side with, say, a difference of 1mm in crystal height, being allowed to leave the factory. I could be totally wrong but that just doesn't seem plausible to me.

I also don't think yours is refinished at all, either. Bearing in mind that these watches were basically obsolete by the late 70s, I can't imagine folks were too fussed about the minutiae of the finishes on their aging watches when they could pick up a hyper-accurate new quartz watch for a fraction of the cost. I would tend to think that the practice of refinishing only became a thing once these watches became collectible, say in the last 15-20 years.

There's a chance yours was polished a bit, though, to smooth out some superficial scratches. And I know "polish" has become a bit of a dirty word when discussing these, for obvious reasons, but there's a drastic difference between the kind of light polish that looks like it was inflicted by a shirt sleeve over four decades, and the kind that obliterates all the lines of a watch. Personally I'd much rather have a lightly polished finish with the watch's original shape intact than a factory-fresh finish on a watch that's 5-10 grams lighter than it's supposed to be. 😉

Tet · Nov 23, 2019

I think this example had been polished at some point....

😲😲😲

Random Google pic BTW.

padders · Nov 23, 2019

I agree cases and crystals probably wouldn't have varied that much, a mm by naked eye seems excessive and would indicate something amiss, but the glass is pressed onto a flexible gasket which will lead to variance. I have just been looking at mine under a 10x loupe, which has a two fold effect of showing the original finish well, but also making the err patina look like the craters of the moon. Some shots under loupe below. I don't think this has been messed with recently if ever. The statement that 99% plus of these have been refinished is nonsense IMO. If you see a scratched up Mk with a full sunburst, particularly a faded one its probably original IMO. If you see one pristine with a wonky sunburst, or a polished smooth one looking like a half sucked Murray Mint (see above) then yes, its been 'improved' (ie ruined). Here are some pics of mine, which appears smooth from a distance.

And for light relief some cats because they are sorely under represented on the internet!

johnnylarue · Nov 23, 2019

padders
I agree cases and crystals probably wouldn't have varied that much, a mm by naked eye seems excessive and would indicate something amiss, but the glass is pressed onto a gasket sits on a gasket which will lead to variance. I have just been looking at mine under a loupe, which has a two fold effect of showing the original finish well, but also making the err patina look like the craters of the moon. Some shots under loupe below. I don't think this has been messed with recently if ever. The statement that 90% plus of these have been refinished is nonsense IMO. If you see a scratched up Mk with a full sunburst, particularly a faded one its probably original IMO. If you see one pristine with a wonky sunburst, or a polished smooth one looking like a half sucked Murray Mint (see above) then yes, its been 'improved' (ie ruined). Here are some pics of mine, which appears smooth from a distance.

And for light relief some cats because they are sorely under represented on the internet!

You see cats, I see hairy sneeze triggers. 😁

I don’t think my completely made up statistic is entirely inaccurate. Take a gander at the 7 most recently listed MKIIs on eBay right now. Not a single one has sharp edges. A number are (badly) refinished, and even the promisingly scratched up ones show evidence of bad polish jobs in their lifetime.

As someone who’s been rather obsessively shopping for one of these for an embarrassingly long time, I could cite maybe 5 or 6 out of dozens from the past year or so that still showed their original sharp edges. Face it: you lucked out! 😉

Tet · Nov 23, 2019

johnnylarue
You see cats, I see hairy sneeze triggers. 😁

I don’t think my completely made up statistic is entirely inaccurate. Take a gander at the 7 most recently listed MKIIs on eBay right now. Not a single one has sharp edges. A number are (badly) refinished, and even the promisingly scratched up ones show evidence of bad polish jobs in their lifetime.

As someone who’s been rather obsessively shopping for one of these for an embarrassingly long time, I could cite maybe 5 or 6 out of dozens from the past year or so that still showed their original sharp edges. Face it: you lucked out! 😉

I think the coment about how many refinished/polished examples was probably aimed at the reply on the previous page that 99% of MKII's have been polished which I agree is way overboard. But the MKII is for sure overall a victim of abuse which can make it tough for people looking for a nice example. You gain an eye for details after searching for months, took me best part of a year before I found mine but tbh there were more than plenty of decent examples in that time but I wanted nicely aged lume as well as untouched(or properly refinished) case so had to play the patience game.

padders · Nov 23, 2019

Tet
I think the coment about how many refinished/polished examples was probably aimed at the reply on the previous page that 99% of MKII's have been polished which I agree is way overboard. But the MKII is for sure overall a victim of abuse which can make it tough for people looking for a nice example. You gain an eye for details after searching for months, took me best part of a year before I found mine but tbh there were more than plenty of decent examples in that time but I wanted nicely aged lume as well as untouched(or properly refinished) case so had to play the patience game.

You are spot on and I did err in that I quoted 90% have been messed with in my post above, when what I meant to challenge was the 99% assertion. I have taken the liberty of chaining my earlier 90% typo to 99%. Thanks for the correction.

All of us in this conversation are seasoned and already know the that way you do it right is to look at about 1000 watches until it becomes second nature to spot a good one from the dross. Noobs think there is a short cut. There just isn't. Put in the hours.

Tet · Nov 23, 2019

padders
You are spot on and I did err in that I quoted 90% have been messes with, when what I meant to challenge was the 99% asserted earlier. I have taken the liberty of chaining my earlier 90% typo to 99%. Thanks for the correction.

All of us in this conversation are seasoned and already know the that way you do it right is to look at about 1000 watches until it becomes second nature to spot a good one from the dross. Noobs think there is a short cut. There just isn't. Put in the hours.

This is all that needs to be said really for anybody searching. Have to be honest any vintage I buy I'll study every single example I can find for reassurance is legit first and I think that's key.

There is no substitute for your own research, if you ask opinions while there are a ton of folk around that are unbelievably knowledgeable, all too often less clued up people jump in with quickfire incorrect judgements which can put people off a purchase which can be a potentially great opportunity.

Thoughts on this refinished Speedy Mark II (and others!)

Nathan1967

johnnylarue

johnnylarue

johnnylarue

bunthit

johnnylarue

johnnylarue

Nathan1967

simonsays

Tet

Nathan1967

padders

johnnylarue

johnnylarue

Tet

padders

johnnylarue

Tet

padders

Tet

Similar threads

Looking for Advice on This 1970 Speedy Mark II ref 145.014

Thoughts on this vintage Speedy Mark II 145.014 Racing Dial 1970