Community Stories

What's a "true" 105.003 "Ed White"... the '63, or '64? (edit: could it have been a 105.002-62?!)

Seaborg
Posts
1,552
Likes
3,645
SpeedyPhill SpeedyPhill
It's a question that baffled Omega Speedmaster Spaceflight fans for decades and Omega came out with the info as they had re-released the classic & iconic no crown guards Speedmaster with 321 movement...
One last note... the only photos I have seen on the subject of the destructive NASA testing of the wristwatches, are no TEST photos but more probably MAINTENANCE photos as the Speedmasters shown are clearly "Professional" dial with crown guards 105.012 versions
( 1968 NASA photos ? ).
.
Ragan006.jpg RaganJames105012.jpg

It's even a 105.012-66 CB 😁
 
lexieb007
Posts
328
Likes
127
Ok so now we know it was a '63... how much more uncommon are they than the 64's? 1:10 something like that? thanks!
 
lexieb007
Posts
328
Likes
127
From the Fratello article and I quote : "Omega serial numbers
That answers the question of what happened to these two Speedmaster 105.003-63 watches. Unfortunately, that means it is difficult to find out the exact Omega serial numbers of these watches. We do, however, know roughly where those serial numbers would have fallen. From the archives, we can tell that the serial numbers would have started with 20’252’6xx. The last two digits seem likely to remain unknown.

The other astronaut on Gemini IV was the command pilot James A. McDivitt. McDivitt was also the commander on Apollo 9. He also wore a Speedmaster during the Gemini IV mission. This was also a reference 105.003-63 with NASA’s S/N 4 CF5503 and SEB1210039-001. This watch is conserved at the Smithsonian in the USA. The Omega serial number of this watch is also in the 20’252’6xx’ range. Interestingly, this particular watch was later on used by astronaut Borman during Gemini VII."

I believe There is an problem and discrepancy with the data here...

According to Moonwatch only the 105.003 -63 begins with serial number 20.521.xxx

So what gives here... that has to be nonsense...??? if Fratello is correct with that serial number that would have been on a 105.002-62...

@SpeedyPhill?? or anyone? what say you?
 
watchyouwant
Posts
5,331
Likes
9,052
This thread has so many valuable Speedmaster infos that it should be a Sticky here..... Kind regards. Achim
Edited:
 
lexieb007
Posts
328
Likes
127
^ well the quoted serials are a pretty glaring discrepancy don't you think? I mean what is a "real" Ed White?
 
M'Bob
Posts
6,682
Likes
21,573
lexieb007 lexieb007
^ well the quoted serials are a pretty glaring discrepancy don't you think? I mean what is a "real" Ed White?

Depends on what your perspective is. If you’re referring to the one he wore, that’s one thing. If your vantage point is the commonly accepted reference for collectors, that would be every year of 105.003.
 
dsio
Posts
30,076
Likes
35,902
Did anyone ever end up figuring out the manufacturer of the -65s marked ZL? Or was it ZJ?
 
lexieb007
Posts
328
Likes
127
M'Bob M'Bob
Depends on what your perspective is. If you’re referring to the one he wore, that’s one thing. If your vantage point is the commonly accepted reference for collectors, that would be every year of 105.003.
Well this is a farce.... It's clearly just a marketing ploy by omega exaggerating the guess work by us fan boy's. Fact is, seems to me we don't actually know. Nobody can lay their eyes on either of the watches - we simply don't have them... seems we aren't any closer to knowing than we were decades ago. Those quoted serials indicate a 105.002!!!! According to MWO they were simply not in the 105.003....So what gives here? IMO!
 
lexieb007
Posts
328
Likes
127
Maybe it was a 105.002-62 with baton drop hands? The moon watch only book states the 105.002-62 was also fitted (? later) with baton drop hands......So what makes everyone 100% convinced he wore a 105.003? Are the close ups of the bezel 70, case and pushers good enough to tell? And if he did, was it an early 63?... with a Swiss Made (only) dial? Has anyone seen the close up of the dial? And if it was one of those (do we actually know?)....well aren't those serials quoted in that fratello article a load of bunkim?
Edited:
 
lexieb007
Posts
328
Likes
127
MoonwatchUniverse_White.jpeg MoonwatchUniverse_McDivitt.jpeg

Look at the light shining off the inner rehort (at around 10) of the watch on Ed Whites arm?...Are these two photos good enough to exclude a B1 bezel, small pushers and a silver rehort ( found on the 105.002-62?)
Edited:
 
eugeneandresson
Posts
5,040
Likes
15,494
lexieb007 lexieb007
MoonwatchUniverse_White.jpeg MoonwatchUniverse_McDivitt.jpeg

Are these two photos good enough to exclude a B1 bezel, small pushers and a silver rehort ( found on the 105.002-62?)

I would say. Also, I can swear there is a ‘t Swiss made t’ on the dial in the top one. However : I’m fairly certain Omega know exactly what was delivered to NASA. They have all records. And there is no need for them to make such details public, other than to kindly be let known what sub reference was delivered/worn etc.
 
lexieb007
Posts
328
Likes
127
^ You have better eyes than me Eugene... "no need to make such details public" LOL what is this the Omega CIA or something?
 
padders
Posts
9,622
Likes
15,183
dsio dsio
Did anyone ever end up figuring out the manufacturer of the -65s marked ZL? Or was it ZJ?

A good question. I've been looking out for an answer for that for years. It looks kind of like rj to my eye. or maybe a stylised g?

Maybe it is an early Speedy Tuesday Prototype created by a time travelling @Robert-Jan

IMG_7844.jpeg
Edited:
 
eugeneandresson
Posts
5,040
Likes
15,494
lexieb007 lexieb007
^ You have better eyes than me Eugene... "no need to make such details public" LOL what is this the Omega CIA or something?

😵‍💫

If Omega delivered 105.002s to NASA it would be known. They would know it. They also would have told it as such to all the sources quoted in this thread.
 
lexieb007
Posts
328
Likes
127
eugeneandresson eugeneandresson
I would say. Also, I can swear there is a ‘t Swiss made t’ on the dial in the top one. However : I’m fairly certain Omega know exactly what was delivered to NASA. They have all records. And there is no need for them to make such details public, other than to kindly be let known what sub reference was delivered/worn etc.
How do you explain the Fratello serial numbers (supposedly made public in "the archives")?
 
eugeneandresson
Posts
5,040
Likes
15,494
lexieb007 lexieb007
How do you explain the Fratello serial numbers (supposedly made public in "the archives")?

Overlap. It’s common on several references.
 
lexieb007
Posts
328
Likes
127
eugeneandresson eugeneandresson
Overlap. It’s common on several references.
Ok.. so why isn't this clearly stated as "a problem" when identifying watches using the Moonwatch only book (which is regarded as the reference for identification is it not?) There is no mention of reference "overlap" in the MWO book....??
 
padders
Posts
9,622
Likes
15,183
The various sources citing serials for the NASA watches suggest one of two things. Either the lists are very very inaccurate or more likely there was a lot of switching out of movements back in the 1960s since many of the serials are impossible for the models. There is at least one flown straight lug which now has a 861 inside and has been that way since the 1970s. Be careful assuming too much from a serial, these were tool watches and treated as such.
 
26 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

MtV

Introducing A New Arrival: Speedmaster 105.003-63 Ed White "Asymmetrical T"

MtV Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
SpeedyPhill
SpeedyPhill
Posts
64
Views
10K
WYO_Watch

105.003-63 or -64 case back Speedmaster Ed White

WYO_Watch Wanted To Buy
WYO_Watch
WYO_Watch
Posts
0
Views
548
ndgal

1965 Omega Speedmaster 105.003-63 Ed White. 7912/6 Bracelet. Extract. Serviced. Awesome Provenance!

ndgal Watches For Sale
ndgal
ndgal
Posts
14
Views
25K