Hi Guys, my first post in 2014 and i wish you a healty and fortunate new year.

Just wanted to ask the experts about the first Speedy i aquired in 2014 its a 105.003 from 65 according to the caseback but it was bought
in 1966 as far as the first owner, from whom i did buy it, could remember.
I think i should show you the pictures first and then ask the questions.














So what would i like to know, ok lets go.
Apart from the obviously wrong Bezel, wrong second hand and wrong crown is there anything else that looks suspicious
to you?
The watch was not worn that much and it was regulary serviced. Has it been polished too much?
What really dirves me crazy is the dial, it looks soo new compared to my 145.012. The 105.003 dial looks matte black, like
the one on my 20th Aniversaryfrom 89 on the right, but it is a panpie like dial as it should be.
The plots are Tritium as are the hands and even as they look white/green/brownish they are not relumed its the original Tritium.
The Serial is late for 65 you can see it in the upper picture. my 69 145.012 even has an earlier number starting with 26075...
Pretty strange isn´t it?
So please guys let me know if you see anything suspicious!

Thanks so much

Cheers

René

 

Simply outstanding. What a beautiful trio.

 

Overall the piece looks great. Besides the mentioned items it looks correct. Attached is a photo of a 105.003 that I had

 

Come to look at it the font on the word "Omega" looks a little off and the markers are wrong..

 

Hi

A 26 mill serial correspond for 68 cal. 321 and 69 cal. 861 Speedmasters.
But that's not necessarily a standard because i happen to own 68 with 28 mill and 69 with 29 mill...
Though my straight lugs models are mostly within the chronological serial standards.
See if there is any color difference between the serial bridge and the rest of the movement.
Omega 321 and 861 movements although "red" have various signs of patina and you could never say 2 movements look identical in color after years of use; so if parts in your watch have different patina or color, it should be easy to find them.
If you're still not sure, then get an Extrait d'Archives from Omega; it should be some 75 CHF. This should be the way to find out if case, movement and dial are from the same movie.
The chrono hand is indeed wrong just like the bezel, but i wouldn't mind about the dial.
It's 100% authentic and i would be more then happy to buy if from you if you wish to source a tarnished one instead...
Let me admire the case condition too.
I saw here many comments about how a genuine and original should look like but i'm sure the same collectors would love to have their Speedmasters in great condition.
All the parts seem original although some wrong but as long as they are factory original you should not have any remorse if you wish to wear it like that.
When talking about originality many collectors really don't know how the first type of crystal looked like, what was the crown size, the first type pushers size, etc, but for most of them, as long as it looks used, the bezel faded, the crystal scratched and the movement possibly not serviced for the last 30 years it's enough...
I personally like the condition of yours; so nice find! If original, i would not hesitate to buy either.

/F

 

Definitely looks like an 861 step dial that someone took the process of painting over the painted Omega symbol and inserted a raised logo as well as reprinting the Omega word..

 

It's not at all a 861 dial.
I also have a 1968 321 Speedmaster delivered in 1969 with a painted logo and 26 mill serial.
This is why i raised the serial question.
In a 2003 document, in a communication with Omega, they clearly say in 1968 they introduced the painted logo.
This is not an 861 dial.
The "worst" scenario, would be a service dial somewhere before 90's.

/F

 

Sometimes you need more than two eyes to see the obvious thanks guys, the idices should be longer no doubt.
Could it be a very early service dial?
Because i hardly doubt that this is a repainted dial with an glued logo on it..
Even with 60x magnification i can´t see any alteration near the logo or the writing.

@all and rolexfanatic thanks for the kind words... this is my second 105.003 and i really like it a lot despite its problems
For clarification i will order an extract surely

 

An extract should help you find out more on the originality but the dial is 100% correct, no doubts about that.
It can be a service dial but i can assure you it's not a modern service dial.
It has at least one element that should make the difference between them, and the bonus is your has patina which is nice.

/F

 

It could be a early 70ties service dial when they still used stepped dials

 

The extract should tell what was the case ref. that came with that movement serial #.
Part of the archive is indeed lost but most of the times is very helpful. At least for those interested in such things...

The painted dial was released in 1968 and after, and were assembled for remaining 321 stock that sold until 1970. There are - 321 case ref - 68 extension retailed in 1970.
The 861 and 321 retailed with the same case ref. in 1968. Then we know the 69, the 69 second version, the gold version, etc. and then the ultra popular 70 to current day back case version.
There are 321 Speedmasters retailed with painted logo dials. As i said i have a 2003 communication document with Omega.
The information came to me from the original owner of a 145.012-68 along with the watch.

/F

 

There has never been a pre-professional dial with non extended markers. You can tell this dial is not original.

I just overlooked it on my phone but sitting at my computer looking at it, it is clear.

We can agree to disagree on a 321 movement being in a painted logo during the transition year as who knows a few maybe have been sold that way but as for a 1965 with that kind of dial I would have to disagree to a T.

 

So what is it then,as i said you dont see any alteration or repainting on the dial even under magnification!?
and the term never should be wisely used when talking about vintage Omega, i think.

 

The odds of my hair regrowing overnight are better.