What do you guys think on this c.321

blubarb · Aug 24, 2015

I am a bit confused on this one. First off, is it a "build-up". The Tachymetre looks right, but from what I can see it's not a DON. And what's with it being a 145.0012, is that a service case back. Can one of our Speedy experts tell me what I am seeing here?

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Very-Rar...ref-1450012-/331622480553?hash=item4d363d7aa9

Cheers

Spacefruit · Aug 24, 2015

My impression is that it is a 105.012-63 with a replacement case back, (note the double zero) and a new dust cover. The serial is way to low and only seen in 105.002 or 105.012.

As the case is marked it is probably original to the dial and handset, with the caseback and dust cover perhaps being fitted at service?

The dial and handset do look quite interesting, close spaced T marks, and matching patina on hands and lume, which is a bit weak. Some refer to it as "washed" that is the lume material is missing or removed. I suspect the photo is not helping the general look.

All it needs is a case back - which wont be easy, because it has to be a 105.012-63

JohnSteed · Aug 24, 2015

Hi. No need to be confused
Believe your eyes. Unattractive dial from pics IMHO, bezel, dust cover and caseback are replaced. Movement serial is 20 millions so not correct for this reference, years too early

You can make an offer it its your 'cup of tea' but could the movement be a mish mosh of parts...? For one thing that coupling yoke doesn't seem in good shape

JohnSteed · Aug 24, 2015

Spacefruit
All it needs is a case back - which wont be easy, because it has to be a 105.012-63

Took me a while but possible, if lucky...

blubarb · Aug 24, 2015

my gut feeling is good but my knowledge slow to catch up, but it is. I suppose being confused is about uncertainty which is good because it makes me critical. I guess I will know the right one when it turns up and just hope my monetary ducks are ready to go. I think what initially threw me was the .0012 as I thought the .00 refers to replacement part and also I don't get a bezel with an accent over the E not being a DON. I can't find one like it in my MWO book.

Davidt · Aug 24, 2015

I think it's a complete franken. The whole case looks new to me, the serial is too low for a '66 or '67 yet it has wide T's which appeared in '66 iirc.

I think it's been made up from a mixture of new parts and old parts from at least two watches.

I wouldn't go anywhere near that watch.

blubarb · Aug 24, 2015

Plus I didn't like the way the photos almost hid the 90 dot and I still can't see where that dot next to the 70 is.

flame · Aug 24, 2015

Hi

I would be very wary of this Watch....Spacefruit's point's are all good , however @ £3.5k or near offer makes it a high risk purchase.

If you were going to ' bid ' him on it , what would you discount by ? 30%+ ? :whipped:

Perhaps wait for the next one to come along....and pay a bit more & get a really good one....

Best - Neil

ewand · Aug 24, 2015

I think I've seen that one before and the photo angles that basically hide the 90/70 dots made me suspicious from the start...

Spacefruit · Aug 24, 2015

JohnSteed
Hi. No need to be confused
Believe your eyes. Unattractive dial from pics IMHO, bezel, dust cover and caseback are replaced. Movement serial is 20 millions so not correct for this reference, years too early

You can make an offer it its your 'cup of tea' but could the movement be a mish mosh of parts...? For one thing that coupling yoke doesn't seem in good shape

I think I may have been hasty - I too was thrown slightly by the photo angle and missed the wide T spacing - incorrectly calling it narrow above.

In which case the dial is too early to be on a -63, from what I have seen in other watches.

Also the asymmetric bridge is unusual on this serial, its right on the time it changed - i don't know enough about this serial's bridges and not about to open up some watches to look!

Taking into account the dial, I would have to come down on the side of an assembly.

Blaise · Aug 24, 2015

Not worth 3.5 in MY book

Spacefruit · Aug 24, 2015

Blaise
Not worth 3.5 in MY book

Of that no question.

blubarb · Aug 25, 2015

Thanks, guys. I think we are all on the same page with this one. And so the search continues...

blubarb · Aug 28, 2015

This is one of the nicest "Ed White" 105.003 I have seen in a long while - It's a shame the Aussie dollar isn't performing better against the USD. This puts the watch for me with duties and taxes closer to AUD16,000 - that's a big price. I can only keep dreaming. I think the price of these has peaked even for great examples. Can you see any flaws in this one? Opinions?

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=423908

Cheers

emilio · Aug 28, 2015

Yes a beauty indeed.. Although the price is very high I might even think it is worth the money 😵‍💫

Did I really say that?

oddboy · Aug 28, 2015

Interesting colors for lume. So even and unblemished.

And a very strong price. There's one at European Watch Co in the same range, complete set too, both have sat for a while.

blubarb · Aug 28, 2015

oddboy
Interesting colors for lume. So even and unblemished.

Exactly.

gemini4 · Aug 29, 2015

Davidt3449
I think it's a complete franken. The whole case looks new to me, the serial is too low for a '66 or '67 yet it has wide T's which appeared in '66 iirc.

I think it's been made up from a mixture of new parts and old parts from at least two watches.

I wouldn't go anywhere near that watch.

I agree. The movement says 63. The dial says 66. Pass on this one.

What do you guys think on this c.321

blubarb

Spacefruit

JohnSteed

JohnSteed

blubarb

Davidt

blubarb

flame

ewand

Spacefruit

Blaise

Spacefruit

blubarb

blubarb

emilio

oddboy

blubarb

gemini4

Similar threads

Omega Geneve - 70s - What you guys think? Back case is bothering me

What do you guys think about this watch?

What do you guys think?

Some weird hands on this universal geneve, what do you guys think?

What do you guys think?

Do you guys think this omega is authentic?