The notion that Moon Watch Only writers have the answers to all or any of the questions re Speedmaster history simply is not accurate. The writers did nothing more than what most of us who have been in the Speedmaster world for decades have done: compare what we see and draw conclusions based on not so much evidence. If a scientist used so few samples to create empirical data then attempted to publish, he would be thrashed by his colleagues. It's a good book and resource, but it's not the final word on anything. It is dangerous to say something is certain with the pre 1970 Speedmasters, and that certainty seems less the further back one goes in time. The crown in question is original, in my opinion. I have seen it on many early Speedmasters that had not (seemingly) been serviced at all. I know many collectors ache for definitive answers regarding original parts, but the reality is Omega didn't keep records that would allow any of us to know with certainty. So many watches from the late 50s and early 60s had been serviced two or more times before anyone ever considered they might be collected and scrutinized one day that it's a fluke when one turns up that was never molested. And even then, it's impossible to know that it was truly never molested. I've seen watches claimed to be untouched one-owners but were in truth touched many times by not so honest hands. Research as best you can, use the books you can find, but keep in mind that much of what is printed is not exact, it's somewhat educated theory. The best answers may be found by buyers who arrive at their own conclusions based on their own observations. And that takes time.
Click to expand...