One of my dreams came true

[sulaco]

Guys i have to share this with you.
Remember when i asked for a pricerange of the 105.003 ;-)
Today i drove 2 hours, in fact this is the first time i did this, to pick up a
watch and came back home with this.

http://i38.tinypic.com/20f2dzb.jpg


Suspense .....

Here´s the engine, one of the cleanest movements i have ever seen, no screws damaged beautiful isn´t it? :-p

http://i38.tinypic.com/dndb40.jpg


The serial number 249...... dates her to 1967, which is my birthyear and still seems plausible because the 105.003 was produced until 1966.


Now here´s her face.


http://i38.tinypic.com/s29qme.jpg

Isn´t she great, but in fact i will give her a man´s name, i call her "ED"
and she´ll be best friend with "Scott" my Breitling Cosmonaute. ;-)
The orignal dial (T swiss made T) already says Professional on it, which also could indicate that it is really a late model of the 105.003, sold when the 105.012 and 145.012 already took her place.
I already ordered the hands that belong to "ED" because these are the wrong ones.
The case is also in great condition, also the edges are a bit worn off but it has no sign of corrosion,
even the hesalite is original with the tiny Logo.

I am really proud to own such a great piece of history and this for sure is one of my keepers :-!:-!

Next thing i need is a nice mesh from back then (didn´t i sell a Ref 1506 recently o|o| . Well without the profit i couldn´t have bought this beauty and the 1506 is not that wearable ).

I´ll show you some pics when i cleaned the crystal again and when he ;-) has the right hands.

I am totally in awe.

[Anthony]

Darn, cant see any photos....Some problem maybe with the linking?

But 105.003 tells me allready everything I need to know : I just want to SEE it :D *drool*

[MSNWatch]

Not a speedy expert by any means but in my humble opinion, the bezel, dial and hands look like newer replacements and the caseback marked '63 seems a bit too distant with the movement which dates to '67 - makes one wonder if the movement is original to the case.

[doctorrich]

Magnifique, Rene! Est tres bien!

[eptaz]

René, my friend, I commented on this one in your previous thread, and I know you're aware of any issues or irregularities with it. With that being said, the ref.105.003 is a fantastic and historic Speedmaster, and it's not easy to find a perfect example. I know you're excited with this one, so I'm excited for you.

Enjoy it.

eric

[RT24k]

Congratulations!

[rousp]

It's a beauty!
Congratulations!

[watchking1]

Very nice piece but:

Not a speedy expert by any means but in my humble opinion, the bezel, dial and hands look like newer replacements and the caseback marked '63 seems a bit too distant with the movement which dates to '67 - makes one wonder if the movement is original to the case.


These would be my remarks as well :think:

[WIS_Chronomaster]

Very nice.

[sulaco]

Well you really seem to jump a bit fast on the put together scenario :think: :rodekaart
let´s investigate a bit further.

I found a nice picture from an English Omega cataloge from 1967-1968
showing a 105.003 with the same bezel
So the bezel, also it might have been exchanged on my watch in the last 40 years, is correct for the late reference 105.003

http://www.old-omegas.com/pics/cat67en/p32.jpg

c/o by www.old-omegas.com (http://www.old-omegas.com)


The hands on my watch have been changed, i did admit that already,
but it is also a very common thing when it gets a service.
I already bought the correct style from Ofrei and have them changed.

The dial on my watch already has "Professional" printed on it which appeared first in 1966 and the Ref 105.003 was still sold in 1966
it reads "T Swiss made T" below 6 o clock and has the correct
Pie-Pan style so it can´t be a replacement.
I can´t find a picture or add showing a 105.003 with a "Professional"
dial, but Eric said, in a previous thread where we were disussing that watch, that he knows that these exist.
@ Eric please share your knowledge.

The movement of my watch can be dated dated to either 1966 or 1967
depending on which reference table you use
Roman Hartmann´s (http://www.chronomaddox.com/romans.html)

or this table (who is it from by the way)

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/1812/51295829cf1.jpg

So what have we got here now,
a movement produced in the last 2 years the Ref 105.003 was produced with a case/caseback from 1963:think:
If i were Omega i would try to get rid of the 105.003 parts and if there´s a caseback from 63 left, what the heck, the customer won´t notice anyway.
But the riddle can only be solved when i service the watch next time and ask Omega about the history of this watch.


Believe me guys, i try to do my homework before i buy something and even if it is a puttogether it was still a bargain because i paid less then 2000USD for it.

I love it :-!

[n linsley]

Absolutely STUNNING!!! watch and in great condition, congrats.

Nick.

[eptaz]

René, as you requested, I'll give you my more detailed thoughts on this. I'll start with saying that, at $2000, you did fine, regardless.

I'll start with my comments in the previous thread (http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=204178), which were based on your comment that the caseback was from '65.
"Professional" first appeared in '65, following Ed White's space walk. The ref.105.003 was still in production, so I think it's very likely that some dials would've been marked "Professional."

But, as you noted, René, this watch is very much put-together. The hands and bezel are newer replacements and the movement is from a later date. Because of that, I think it would be difficult to put a price on it, but at the least, you could assume that the dial and case are worth several hundred dollars each, maybe closer to $1000 each. The movement? I'm really not sure, but a c.321 in nice condition should be worth quite a bit.

At any rate, what's an original 105.003 going for, nowadays? $4000? $5000? More?

eric
It's difficult to see the bezel in the pic in this thread, but in the previous thread, it is evident that it is a newer replacement. Here's a comparison, which shows your bezel on the right.
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o1/eptaz/comparisons/tachymarks.jpg

Note the "Tachymeter" text is more squished on the modern example. Also, note the position of the dot at 90 on yours, compared with the one in the brochure you posted.


So, setting the hands and bezel aside, we're left with a case from '63, a movement from '67 (http://watches.ryanrooney.com/omega-serial-numbers.html), and a dial from late '65, at the earliest. While, Omega didn't necessarily use parts manufactured in the same year, three or four years is a pretty big gap from the case to the movement. Likewise, two to three years is a pretty big gap between the case and the dial. We would have to assume that, when Omega built this in '67, they used a four year old case, from a model that was no longer in production.

Of course, anything is possible. The sn charts aren't perfect, so it's possible that movement could have come from '66, making the reference number correct. My honest opinion is the most reasonable assumption is that the dial and movement were taken from a later model and used in this ref.105.003-63 case.

Again, I think that you probably suspected as much before purchasing this one. Based on that knowledge, you felt that it was worth it, and I would agree. In fact, you could probably get $2000 if you were to sell the dial, case, and movement as parts. As it is, you still have a very attractive watch, with a fantastic movement, at a very fair price, which you can wear and enjoy. I think that's what's most important, here.

eric

[sulaco]

Hi eric,

i know that the bezel is a newer replacement, but it is the correct and only available replacement.
From my point of view, movement and dial are from the same production year there is no difference between a 65 or 67 dial with the applied logo, so the only problem is the case, so there is the possibility that movement and dial were swapped from a 145.012 or 105.012, but that´s just guesswork.
IMHO the only way to find out would be asking Omega and as i said i´ll do that when i service the watch. I think with the serial number they are able to find out when the watch and in which case the movement was sold.

[sulaco]

One more thing, i am under no circumstance trying to convince you that this watch was made in 1963, i am only saying that there is a chance that this
watch was (except for the new replacement parts, the hands and bezel)
produced in 1966/67 in this configuration even if it has a caseback from 1963 :-)

[MSNWatch]

I think all we are saying is that you purchase a watch like this assuming that it is a put together - that's what is the most likely conclusion given the reasons already stated in this thread. If it is proven by omega's records it is not then great - you just scored a great deal. If it is indeed verified to be a put together then there are no disappointments. If you plan on keeping it and enjoying it then you're absolutely right, it doesn't matter what any of us think. But if you plan to keep it for investment or hope to make a profit on a future sale of the watch, then I think our opinions have some value since we are all potential customers and are in a way expressing our reservations on purchasing a watch with questions hanging over it. That being said, I for one hope you are correct and that a perusal of omega's records bears this out - if nothing else, it would increase the value of your watch and add to your already considerable enjoyment.

[sulaco]

My 145.022 from 69 (according caseback) has a movement serial number of 300... dating it to
71.
My friends 145.022 from 69 (according caseback) also has a movement serial number starting with 300...

Here are several bay links where the gap between movement exceeds 1 years

This 145.022 from 69 (http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140283723763&indexURL=9#ebayphotohosting) movement from 70

This 145.022 from 76 (http://cgi.ebay.de/OMEGA-Speedmaster-Moonwatch-Chrono-1976-con-cofanetto_W0QQitemZ370113384274QQcmdZViewItemQQptZ Orologi_da_Polso?hash=item370113384274&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A1%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318) movement from 79

This 105.003 from 65 (http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320318163284&indexURL=10&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting) movement from 68/69

I think it is rather an exception when you find a caseback and movement from the same year.

So, setting the hands and bezel aside, we're left with a case from '63, a movement from '67 (http://watches.ryanrooney.com/omega-serial-numbers.html), and a dial from late '65, at the earliest. While, Omega didn't necessarily use parts manufactured in the same year, three or four years is a pretty big gap from the case to the movement. Likewise, two to three years is a pretty big gap between the case and the dial. We would have to assume that, when Omega built this in '67, they used a four year old case, from a model that was no longer in production

[eptaz]

One more thing, i am under no circumstance trying to convince you that this watch was made in 1963, i am only saying that there is a chance that this
watch was (except for the new replacement parts, the hands and bezel)
produced in 1966/67 in this configuration even if it has a caseback from 1963 :-)
I understand, René, and like I said, anything is possible. I just gave my honest opinion of what I think is the most likely explanation, based on the overall picture.

eric

[Justice]

Hi eric,

i know that the bezel is a newer replacement, but it is the correct and only available replacement.
From my point of view, movement and dial are from the same production year there is no difference between a 65 or 67 dial with the applied logo, so the only problem is the case, so there is the possibility that movement and dial were swapped from a 145.012 or 105.012, but that´s just guesswork.
IMHO the only way to find out would be asking Omega and as i said i´ll do that when i service the watch. I think with the serial number they are able to find out when the watch and in which case the movement was sold.

You don't have to wait until you get it serviced. You can order an "Extract of Records" and you'll get a nice certificate confirming not only what reference the movement came in, but also the date the watch was manufactured and the official agent and country where it was sent to. No more guessing.
Not only does it answer a lot of questions, it also alleviates a lot of doubts for any potential buyers and the knowledge of it's true history will help increase the value of the watch.

- Jake

P.s.
My '68 case back and ser# 26XXXXXXX mov't, was delivered to the official agent in the USA August 1969.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1/jake_justice/P1000340.jpg

[spogehead]

I don't know if this will help or confuse but this one is my Father-in-laws and is dated around 66/67 to use as comparison apart form the hands it's all original AFAIK.

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee69/spogehead/IMG_2274.jpg

[Noisy Nova]

I have a Seamaster 321.
Caseback is 105-001-62.
Movement is 15,997,700
Purchaced new in 1969.
Hope this means something. :-)
Anything is possible.

[GJ]

My Speedmaster 105.003 had a caseback from the year 1965
The movement came from the year 1968

Made some pictures just before I sold it..;-)

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b280/hiethaar/Pre%20pro%20serviced/DSCF0054.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b280/hiethaar/Pre%20pro%20serviced/DSCF0120.jpg

Omega was in those days ''between the models'' so to speak, and I find it no more then normal to get rid of the old parts.
That is what happened I think, they used some old parts on new models..

[Justice]

I have a Seamaster 321.
Caseback is 105-001-62.
Movement is 15,997,700
Purchaced new in 1969.
Hope this means something. :-)
Anything is possible.

The date of purchase doesn't really tell us anything. It could have been sitting at the AD for years.
An Extract of Records will tell you when it was manufactured.

- Jake

[Justice]

My Speedmaster 105.003 had a caseback from the year 1965
The movement came from the year 1968...

...Omega was in those days ''between the models'' so to speak, and I find it no more then normal to get rid of the old parts.
That is what happened I think, they used some old parts on new models..

I don't really buy into that theory. If Omega had left over parts, it would stand to reason that they would use them up before dipping into or even ordering new stock. If your theory is to be believed, Omega would be using new backs and then occasionally switching back to left over old stock.
I have a very early '68 mov't number and I have a '68 case back.
I suppose it is likely that they found some old backs that had fallen behind the workbench. :-d

I think you need to consider the possibility that you have a replacement back on your watch too. :think:
Did you get an Extract of Records?

- Jake

[henryjbird]

I like the watch. Part of buying a 40 year watch is the MYSTERY around it's story and the wonder of the experiences and events in history that it was present for on the wrist of some fellow traveling through life.

I have the same watch with a movement serial number that would reflect somewhere around 64 and case back that would reflect 64 and an "Extract of Records" |> that it was shipped to Singapore in early 65.

You would be about to say sweeeeet :-!.

But .... though it has a pre pro dial with the raised logo and tritium markings on the dial .... the dial is not stepped :rodekaart. Who knows how that happened or why :think:.

The hands are the correct ones ..... but the bezel has a tinge of blue to it:rodekaart .... though the rest off the "tells" pass muster.

So we have a mystery ..... one that will never be solved.:-s

One that could pose concerns :think: with folks who might be potential buyers.

Except ....... I ain't going to ever sell it ;-) .... same as Sulaco :-!.

So, since even if he were to sell it ..... he'd make his 2K back without a blink ....... Let's celebrate his purchase and wish him well.

The one thing that is certain is ...... that watch has lived and seen ..... and we will wonder ..... just what those sites may have been!

Henry

[Justice]

...The one thing that is certain is ...... that watch has lived and seen ..... and we will wonder ..... just what those sites may have been!

Henry

Well put Henry. That's one of the reasons I like vintage watches so much.
I wasn't trying to take the mickey out of Sulaco's new aquisition, I just think there are some questions that might be answered with a little research. This would be a pretty boring forum if we all just replied "Nice watch" to every new watch thread.
But if you don't want to know the answer, don't ask. ;-)

- Jake

[henryjbird]

True about that. I would not want to encourage a placid, bland, generalized bit of responses. Hope I did not leave that impression either.

I think it's healthy to pose questions, just wanted to keep in mind the context Sulaco bought the gem, a keeper, bought at a reasonable price.

All the Q's are valid and at the same time, it is a really sweet watch that probably any of us would be jazzed beyond all reason to run into someone in the wild wearing and have the chance to talk too.

Henry

[316L]

awesome

[Anthony]

Guys, as I understood, its pretty hard to get that "exctract of records", you need email adresses, bank money transfers and such?

I have one vintage Speedy and I would love to have 'extract of records' for it.

[sulaco]

I asked Jake by PM how it works and i can transfer the answer to you if you like:-)

Guys, as I understood, its pretty hard to get that "exctract of records", you need email adresses, bank money transfers and such?

I have one vintage Speedy and I would love to have 'extract of records' for it.

[sulaco]

That´s why i like vintage wtaches too, you never know what they went through and most of their history will always remain a secret.
I hope that "extract of records" will expose some if it, but most certainly not everything.
So for the moment i enjoy it as it is until the correct hands arrive and until
i find a decent Mesh for it.
:-!
Thanks All for the critical ;-) and the enthusiastic posts, it´s always good to be here |>

[Anthony]

I asked Jake by PM how it works and i can transfer the answer to you if you like:-)
That would be great René, thanks |>

[BlackLight]

Congrats |>

Now you know why I own mostly pre-loved watches... b-)

[henryjbird]

Please let us know what you find from the Extract of Records, I find it most interesting knowing it first went for saile and then imagining the road it took to get to the owner today.

[Zidane]

Congrats!

[watchking1]

You might want to try this mesh since it's a 19mm lug width. This is a Jurgen;s mesh that I reduced down to the 19mm width needed.

My 105.003 here:

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb293/taxking1/Speedmaster%20105%20003/IMG_4730.jpg

[sulaco]

That combination looks great, will give it a try :-!

You might want to try this mesh since it's a 19mm lug width. This is a Jurgen;s mesh that I reduced down to the 19mm width needed.

My 105.003 here:

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb293/taxking1/Speedmaster%20105%20003/IMG_4730.jpg

[Anthony]

Guys,

I just ordered "Extract of Records" from Omega bienne. I was wondering do you have experience of how long it takes to arrive?

[sulaco]

So here´s the result of the story.
I asked Omega for an Extract of records of this watch
and i received the following.

Dear Mr Delp,

Further to your request we very much regret to inform you that certificate can not be established.

After having submitted your detailed request to our Vintage Information department, we have been informed that the case reference does not correspond to the movement fitted in your OMEGA watch.
In fact, movement serial no 24’950’692 was originally fitted in a watch case of reference ST 105.012 and not ST 105.003-63.

For the above mentioned reasons we unfortunately not in a position to issue the requested certificate.

We thank you for your understanding and remain,
with kind regards,

Maria MastrodonatoNow i have a watch that combines 2 outstanding human efforts

a 105.003 case same model which was worn by Ed White on the first American Spacewalk and a 105.012 movement, same model which was worn on the moon by several astronauts.

Maybe i should call it "Ed Aldrin" ;-)

You always have to think positive and someday i might find a correct movement or a correct Case, or both :-d

So Eric and all the rest. You were right, i was wrong my appologies ;-)


The best thing is that Omega didn´t charge a cent for this info as no extract was created. PERFECT CUSTOMER CARE

[Blaise]

So here´s the result of the story.
I asked Omega for an Extract of records of this watch
and i received the following.

Now i have a watch that combines 2 outstanding human efforts

a 105.003 case same model which was worn by Ed White on the first American Spacewalk and a 105.012 movement, same model which was worn on the moon by several astronauts.

Maybe i should call it "Ed Aldrin" ;-)

You always have to think positive and someday i might find a correct movement or a correct Case, or both :-d

So Eric and all the rest. You were right, i was wrong my appologies ;-)


The best thing is that Omega didn´t charge a cent for this info as no extract was created. PERFECT CUSTOMER CARE

Perhaps you should call it "The White Aldrin":-s:-!

BTW could you PM me Ms Mastrodonato's e-mail, please René?
I'd like to contact them is a similar issue!

thanks a lot in advance

[gaopa]

That is a beautiful and historic watch, Rene. Congratulations! Cheers, Bill P.

[eptaz]

Sometimes, I wish I was wrong, René, but I think you're looking at the situation in the right way. It is a beautiful watch that should give you a great deal of enjoyment.

Wear it well, my friend.

eric

[georges zaslavsky]

wear your watch in good health

[Zidane]

Congrats! Thats a classic for sure.