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.
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....??
If you take a good look here, you will see LOTS of serial number overlap.
https://www.watchbooksonly.com/arti...view-of-the-speedmaster-moonwatch-production/
^So @eugeneandresson are you 100% convinced Ed White wore a T SWISSMADE T 105-003-63? I seriously value your opinion... thanks!
In Table A (from the link I shared), that SN doesn’t even fit to a Speedmaster. But it does in table B. There could be several reasons, all left to speculation. Ie perhaps the MWO authors didn’t get through all the archives (if you look at the Fratello article on how this works, it’s a serious challenge)...perhaps the NASA orders were a ‘special’ batch (thus out of sequence to regular production)...etc etc. what is certain is that Omega would know what they sent. I hope this at least gives you some peace of mind.
I just find the whole myth/story of this "Ed White" watch just that.. a myth... and so many people (including Omega themselves) have spun it out there... that it was the 105.003... For years it was said to be a 64 (even a 65) ...so thousands upon thousands of watches (these dates are way more common) were flogged by dealers (and others) selling so called "Ed Whites"... to unassuming collectors...then it was clarified maybe it was a '63.. but show me the real evidence it's even a '63? that's all I'm saying... Cheers
I appreciate you being punctilious about this but you appear to be morphing two issues: one is, what is the accurate reference Ed White used? I get that.
But on the other issue, the horse is not only out of the barn, he’s run out of town: whether accurate or not, the 105.003 is, and will remain the “Ed White,” likely even if it’s later found that it was the previous reference.
Some (even Omega) call this an Ed White too, but it doesn't seem to be sticking. Perhaps because Ed White never wore this reference? ☕
