65 Speedmaster Cal. 321, please verify?

[WatchFred]

case shows signs of polishing and I am a bit unsure about dial and hands, may I have your opinions, please ?

[Chumleyuk]

Looks like a pretty bad frankenstein... The dial, caseback and chrono second hand appear to be correct for 1965 but the movement serial number is most probably from a later 1966-67 145.012 speedy. This would match the case design, however, I would hazard a guess that the case and crown are from a later speedy than 67... On top of this, the dial has been poorly relumed and the caseback has been polished a thousand times.

[mt1tdi]

Incorrect bezel for a '65 as well. Should be a dot over 90 on it.

[eduardo_gomez]

The only thing in that one that belong to a 105.012 is the case back, the bracelet has 633 end links that bracelet came whith 861 watches, an the lugs? There is no 105 with twisted lugs.

[ASRSPR]

If we're "busting fakes", this one looks okay. The bezel and crown aren't original to the watch, of course, but they are fairly commonly replaced over the decades during the course of normal service. The bracelet isn't especially troubling either. I've seen alot more pre-moon Speedies for sale with service bezels and 1171s than dot-over-90 bezels and 1039s. It's not of of any great collecting value, but it does seem of about average condition. I mean, the dial and hands appear original. I don't think they look at all like they've been relumed - they look expressly like they've been not been relumed. The blacked-out top half of the 12 o'clock marker is a little troubling though.

As for the movement, it looks like #245xxxxx? I've a 145.012-67 with 265xxxxxx. In any case, any such small discrepancies with movement date are easily explained through the parts bin factor.

There is no 105 with twisted lugs.

Except for the 105.012, of which this is an example?

[Spacefruit]

It's not a frank.
105.012 was a landmark model, first asymmetrical case, first pro dial.
i personally like the dial on this one, I love a bit of patina.