"Lume scraped off the markers, wrong chrono hand." I have two of these, same issues. One mad watch repairer named Igor doing these in his basement? I'm starting to suspect the lume on these often fell off by themselves, or mostly fell off, and the remaining bits were helped off by the watchmaker. But why would all the original chono hands be changed out during service to the flat-bottom variety - they couldn't all have gone bad, could they? M'Bob
IMHO ... Lume....I say either when the pics not clear to me. Chrono hand...For '67s, I don't really care about the chrono hand as these can vary.
Yes, but I understand the 105.012 is supposed to have the earlier style chrono hand, but so often they don't.
For later 145.012, a flat chrono hand is correct. Regarding the lume scrapped off, I believe that loose lume is hazardous if flakes of lume pentrate the movement. Probably a good reason when many vintage dials have lume removed
I agree. My understanding is the hazardous flakes fall off the plots and eventually penetrate the dial and damage the movement.
I belive it's more of an issue if the watch has a date window, which the 145.012 and 105.012 do not, but can be harmful just the same. Plus the older 2915 and 2998 references have radium flaking off. Stuff last a long time and not the best thing for the watchmaker to be breathing in.
What watchmaker in his right mind is going to scrape off the lume and risk breathing in highly radio-active dust for $50 or £50 per hour? It may have happened in the past, but these days?
Surely lume degradation happens with all vintage watches of that era? But we seldom see Submariners (for example) with washed dials. For that matter, we seldom see 145.022s with washed dials. So why the 145.012 in particular? (Not familiar with the 105.012 so I won't comment).