れい
1790
Speedy Pro 105.012 - question for Speedy experts
Guys, does this look right? It has the later chrono hand, but according to an article, the last period's 4th version had the later chrono hand type.
Also, what's the difference between this model and 145.012?
Thank you all in advance!
Rei, i was going to...
By: G99 : November 29th, 2009-01:43
Rei, i was going to comment on this 1963 'pro' model yesterday, but the kids were here and i was forcd to drive an Xbox :) my comment would have read that it is possible or even quite likely that this dial is a slightly later than original addition. the r...
1963 - by caseback
By: Anatol : November 29th, 2009-10:25
Rei, my watch comes directly from Peru and I would be very surprised if somebody would have swapped the dial for one with "A.C.P."-printing at a later date. The letters are definetely "ex works" rather than added later. So I guess the watch was ordered wi...
Anatol, it does show that...
By: G99 : November 29th, 2009-14:45
Anatol, it does show that we should never believe everything we read about Omega even if there's been a lot of research behind it. despite every piece of info i gleaned when i bought my 64 model i failed to discover that there were some pro dials made ear...
it is strange Art, the...
By: G99 : November 30th, 2009-01:59
it is strange Art, the 321 calibre seems to be unadjusted for the huge quantities needed for the speedy, but adjusted to 2 pos for the much smaller numbers in the seamasters. not chronometer rated as you stated, just adj 2 pos. perhaps they wanted to sell...
adj 2 positions
By: Bill Sohne : November 29th, 2009-18:24
Hi G Agree.... I have a first generation Seamaster chronograph ck 2907 its 321 movement is also signed adjusted two positions... But I have not come across a Speedy with a movement with the same markings.. I have not come across a reason one way or anothe...