A couple of years ago I bought a 1972 Speedmaster Mk II that had been bought that same year and worn by an international airline pilot through his career. He sent it in 2011 to Omega for a service and refurbishment, but after he got it back he never wore it again, so it looks absolutely new.

I don't normally touch refurbished watches, but Omega had done such a fine job on this one that I could not resist it.



Omega had replaced the original 145.014 case back (which was engraved with the pilot's name) but fortunately returned it with the watch. I cleaned it up and put it back on the watch - I prefer it that way as the pilot's name and his story are part of the watch.



What surprises me about the service replacement 145.0014 case back is that it bears the name Seamaster, rather than Speedmaster. There is no doubt that the one I have was fitted by Omega at the time of the service in 2011.



After checking with Archer and looking online it is clear that the service replacement is the right one – but why didOmega choose to put Seamaster on the service replacement case?

I apologise if this has already been covered by earlier posts, but I could not find them.

 

If I was guessing, it’s a specific enough size and used so infrequently that it didn’t make financial sense to make more ‘Speedmaster’ marked backs. I’m guessing the Seamaster back is a matter of convenience and practicality.

 

I guess that is a possible answer. However some online comments claim that there is an 145.0014 case back with the correct Speedmaster name, and I have seen one advertised on eBay as NOS, so I remain puzzled.

 

According to the Omega Xtranet the current replacement is part number 112ST1450014. The picture with that reference corroborates that it has the ‘Seamaster’ stamped caseback. There is another caseback option that it lists as obsolete and they offer an alternative caseback - part number 112ST1630 - interestingly this has a ‘Soeedmaster’ stamped caseback. The actual part name is listed as - Steel caseback Speedmaster 1450014.

the ‘Seamaster’ stamped back is not named such, it’s just called - Steel back.

So, Omega do list the Seamaster back as an official spare part, but I think the Xtranet may be incorrect in listing that one if there is a ‘Soeedmaster’ alternative right below it. Hope that makes sense. Let me know if you need any clarification.

 

Slight clarification to my last point. The ‘Seamaster’ stamped variant actually says 1450014 in the caseback so it can’t be an Xtranet oversight. The plot thickens...

 

Nothing wrong with a refinished watch and this one looks great!

 

It's great looking watch. looks like it was serviced very nicely. Regarding the case back I can guess along with the others, that there are no more of the originals, and Omega aren't going to be making any more. They probably keep parts that fit a broad assortment of watches even if not original to a particular reference. And at some point even that supply of parts may be gone. If I really wanted to preserve the piece then keep as you have it with the engraved case back, or start hunting for a case back or a donor watch with good case back. Otherwise it's a nice piece in the collection.

 

Thanks all for the feedback. I am glad others liked the Omega refurbishing too - so here is another shot showing off that superb brushing with crisp high polish edging.



As much as I like it, watches with their original finish will always take my preference: like my 1972 Flightmaster below.

 

Wow your Flightmaster is in stunning condition - the flawless crystal really helps show off the colourful dial and hands. I badly need a replacement crystal for mine!

 

Don't show anyone the back & they will never know!
See if a Seamaster shows up on auction with a Speedmaster back!
All things considered, it is amazing parts of anything from that vintage is still available.
Enjoy the front & stop looking @ the back!
Folks were right, "Can't take me anywhere!"
Ciao! Mike

 

This week an Omega refurbished Mark II appeared in OF's Private sales (https://omegaforums.net/threads/omega-speedmaster-mark-ii-145-014.136884/), with the Seamaster back like my replacement back. It looks like a very nice example for anyone interested, and at a considerably lower price than I paid for mine.

So with the feedback already received here, and this comparable example, it is time to accept that sometimes odd things happen. It really does not matter anyway, as I enjoy mine as much for its international pilot provenance as for its other attributes. Thanks to all for your contributions!

 

I re-visited your post.
So all is not lost as the original back is in your possesion, that is great.
Try not to beat it up too much, but wear it & enjoy!
Ciao! Mike

 

Good advice Mike

 

Interestingly, Speedmaster 4.5s that I have seen have a Seamaster back as well. I think I read something on here about it being a connection to the original diversification of the Seamaster line (into SM300, Railmaster and Speedmaster). I wonder though whether there’s a connection here with this earlier Mk series - or maybe all the 4.5s I’ve seen have service backs?!

 

i have seen some connection of seamaster logo / name to other omega watches
at one point i felt like seamaster means water proof logo for any omega watch
would like to learn more from OF seniors, as always

seamaster-speedmaster (this thread)
seamaster-constellation (written on service invoices fro my piepan constellations)
seamaster-railmaster (current PIC)
seamaster-deville (not remember exactly where, i have seen more than once here and there)
seamaster-geneve (???)
seamaster-omega only logo on dial (???)

 

Seamaster - De Ville: the De Ville line started as a subline of Seamaster, and dials were co-signed
Seamaster - Speedmaster: The Speedmaster was born as a child of the Seamaster, even if the dial was never co-signed. Omega decided to keep the logo

Interestingly, the tachymeter scale was called a "tacho-productometer"

Others, no real idea...
- The Railmaster is listed by Omega as part of the Seamaster line, maybe that is why. So when the trilogy was presented in 1957, it was a Seamaster Trilogy: 1 for deep-diving, 1 for rail-diving, and 1 for Moon-diving
- The Seamaster - Geneve is really weird to me... I thought Geneve started earlier than Seamaster and that it was their flagship line before the Constellation was created
- Seamaster - Constellation: maybe they handle those vintages as part of the same category on their computer system? If correct, it would be more correct to write Seamaster/Constellation but software usually do not like '/' (it should, but it doesn't)


edit:
- Seamaster with no seamaster logo: found the answer in another video of the watchonista series: Seamaster was the first line, then comes the Constellation, then the Ladymatic. When Constellation arrived, they thought a logo was needed to differenciate the lines. But the Seamaster only got its logo in 1956-1957, after the 2 others

 

My 176.0012 back.

 

And some of the front.

 

Ya'll think ya can understand the Swiss!
Check out the opening ceremony for their tunnel!
On youtube & explain that show to me.
I am just as confused over that, maybe more.
See who is in the audiance.
Ciao Mike

 

Had an Omgea Constalation come in for servce & it had a Seiko back on it?
Gentlman took a swing with his golf club & the back of the watch follwed in direction of the ball.
That was the last he saw of that back. He was happy to put any back on so he could wear the watch.
Ciao! Mike