Speedy Tuesday: Unraveling The Mysteries Of My Speedmaster 105.003-65 Ed White

Owning a vintage watch can be an enriching experience. It can also be frustrating and unforgiving when someone brings up an issue or inconsistency. Today’s story is positive, but there were instances of concern. Thankfully, luck entered the picture and produced a happy ending with this Omega Speedmaster 105.003-65 Ed White.

First, it’s important to note that the proximity of Tomas’s recent #TBT 105.003 article and today’s story is almost a complete coincidence. I say “almost” because his story resulted from seeing an Instagram post of my watch. I had my example out last week to prepare for today’s Speedy Tuesday installment. Go figure! Next, I wrote a #TBT article on today’s watch in 2016 after having it serviced by our watchmaker Paul in the Netherlands. I won’t rehash all the details from that article, but today’s brings new information to light. With the pleasantries taken care of, shall we begin?

Back to the beginning with the Speedmaster 105.003-65

In 2015, vintage Speedmasters were hot. A 2016 all-Speedy New York auction was on the way (these model-specific auctions seem about as “productive” to value as a season-ending, injury-inducing appearance on the cover of a Madden video game), and Omega was still kicking out annual limited editions. For me, it meant shoring up my Pre-Moon collection. I wanted a 321-powered model with twisted “lyre” lugs and a straight-lugged model. The straight-lugged search boiled down to the 105.003 because it was somewhat affordable.

I struck earlier in the year and picked up a 105.003-64 with a lousy case but a halfway decent dial. Instead of cutting my losses, I decided to double down and look for a decent case to pair with my earlier purchase. Months later, in very late 2015, I stumbled across a listing on eBay that is no longer viewable. At first glance, the watch was a shambles. The crystal was wrong, and it appeared with two different case backs, an incorrect crown, and a hodgepodge of a bracelet. But, whereas I have little patience for stupid people, I have a thing for watches with untapped potential. I’m not always right, but I’ve been buying ratty auction lots for long enough to develop a relatively trustworthy gut.

Taking a gamble

There was something decent about this Speedmaster 105.003-65 that listed for something like $4,500 out of Venezuela. Still, the location concerned me, but when the seller presumably came to Miami for the holidays and changed the listing location, I pounced. I still remember FedEx rolling up to my parent’s place and handing me the box. I opened it on the hood of my dad’s car in the driveway and thought, “Dammit, I have a problem.” The problem was that the watch was too good to part out, and while I didn’t know it then, the case would have been incorrect for a -64 model anyhow.

Research after the fact

When I look for a watch, especially one with plenty of accessible resource material, I do my research. I had read websites and forum discussions but missed a relevant post on Omega Forums. After receiving it, I decided to look at the site again to see if it had come up in discussions. In fact, the 105.003-65 was discussed, and the chatter was interesting. Sadly, I’m unable to find the original pics from eBay, but I can assure you that the watch looks the same aside from a new crown and crystal. You can still read the Omega Forums post here. I advise you to take a look at it because it’s interesting. I’m not here to say “haha” because this watch is well worn and likely falls well short of the condition threshold for many. But, as we’ll see, the watch isn’t a Franken. Also, note the dissenting opinions within the thread; they’re more studied and bring logic instead of emotion to the discussion. One such supporting comment came from the owner of the Speedmaster 101 site, which was a reference I used to vet the watch.

Let’s talk about the serial number

When I purchased my Speedmaster 105.003-65, a major concern was the movement’s serial number. I know it’s not an exact science, but the Speedmaster 101 site calls out a range of “2282 7xxx – 2544 6xxx” for the -65. Therefore, when mine arrived with a 25,449,xxx serial number, the odds that this was a swapped movement felt very high. After all, this was a well-worn watch from a hot climate. So I did what most people would do: I wore the watch for a few years with pangs of fear and concern that it was put together. Finally, in late 2018, I visited Omega’s headquarters and stopped at the museum. I gave the folks there my watch’s serial number, and they promised to email me with more information.

In January 2019, the email finally arrived, and the news was shocking. My Speedmaster 105.003-65 was delivered to Venezuela on October 30th, 1968. This makes it a very late Ed White as deliveries ended sometime in 1969. As a reminder, the Speedmaster was sold alongside the Speedmaster Professional for more than five years.  More importantly, though, Omega’s information tells us that the watch likely lived its entire life in Venezuela, the source of the eBay listing. Fascinating!

Unraveling the bracelet

When my Speedmaster 105.003-65 arrived, it came on an amalgam of a bracelet. The end links were incorrect and wedged so tightly between the lugs that I’ve never been able to fit them again. The bracelet links were from a ’70s 1171 typically found on a Speedmaster Professional from the era. The clasp, though, was from a 1035 (one of the flat-link models we know and love from the ’60s). This odd combination fed the Franken concerns in the Omega Forums comments, but it makes sense now. A closer look at the 1035 clasp shows a date code of “4 68,” which translates to the fourth quarter of 1968. In other words, it’s a perfect match for the watch head! I guess the 1035 bracelet had given up the ghost years ago (it’s a fragile design indeed), and the owner had the original clasp transplanted onto the 1171 bracelet. Perhaps he liked it better than the 1171’s rougher version, or maybe the 1171 clasp broke at some point. I can only guess that the original stamped end links were bent and replaced with something new.

Speedmaster 105.003-65 case observations

The detail that originally drew me to this exact Speedmaster 105.003-65 was its case. Yes, it is highly used, but it’s fantastic — at least for me. Speedmaster Professional models like the 105.012-66 receive a lot of coverage for having either “CB” or “HF” cases, but the discussions about various Ed White cases are somewhat muted. There are some great threads on Omega Forums, especially about the -64 and its lack of case bevels, but the topic garners less interest than, say, the chamfers on a Rolex GMT-Master 1675.

For many, a hint of bevels on an Ed White is a sign of an overzealous case polisher. That doesn’t seem to be the case in all situations. The -65, from my research, does feature pronounced bevels or chamfers. As this was the ’60s, I’ll hazard a guess that this work was done by hand and, therefore, some variation exists from case to case. If we come to the Speedmaster Calibre 321, the modern but exact reinterpretation of the Ed White and Wally Schirra models, note the relative lack of bevels. All the Gemini models were confirmed by Omega as 105.003-63 references. The -63 has a different case profile. Unfortunately, the Omega mid-cases were not marked, meaning some bleed-over from year to year along with case swaps is possible. So, when deciding on the originality of a Speedmaster, as with Rolex, we must use known examples as our guide.

Cosmetics

I own a new-old-stock 105.003 dial and considered throwing it into my Speedmaster 105.003-65. I purchased it before I received the Omega email. Once I learned more about the watch, the thought of a transplant disappeared as quickly as it arrived. Plus, it wouldn’t have worked well with the rest of the watch. I like the sun-bleached dial, and even though most of the lume is gone (from the hands too), I love how it looks. Equally, the hands show patina, and there’s a touch of rust on the central chronograph hand. Then, there’s the faded “DON” bezel with its minor dents. Folks, I own my share of showroom-quality vintage watches, but if I’m being honest, I’m just as happy or even happier with this type of watch. The thought of a 60-year-old tool watch with a story that includes actual wear and use gives me an odd sense of joy. Keep your UV lights away from this one if lume inspection is your determinant for good or bad.

The 321 inside

The 321 chronograph movement inside my Speedmaster 105.003-65 wasn’t running well when it arrived. Nearly eight years later, it runs beautifully and is surprisingly accurate. It winds smoothly, and the chronograph complication activates without drama via the original pushers. The 12-hour counter shows a touch of creep, which is a common issue with this caliber. Still, it’s an iconic movement and nice to have in the collection.

Wearing the Venezuelan Speedy

Oddly, of all the watches I own, this Speedmaster 105.003-65 and my Rolex Explorer 1016 seem to excite onlookers most. That’s odd because the Explorer is in sublime condition, while this watch shows its battle scars. From a wearing perspective, there’s something magical about a straight-lugged Speedy. It feels like a completely different watch on the wrist versus the more common twisted-lug models, yet it’s part of the family.

What’s next

Unless the original owner of my Speedmaster 105.003-65 contacts me and shares more of its history, the story is at its end. For now, I’ve ordered a pair of inexpensive replica “6” end links to pair with a barely worn 1039 bracelet for the watch. I’ll need to decide whether to transplant the original buckle, but I probably won’t.

Is my Speedmaster more valuable because of the insights that have come to light over the past eight years? Not at all. It’s still a heavily worn Ed White. For me, it exemplifies the possibility of researching a given watch and finding clues about its past. I like that sort of academic pursuit, especially when the results are positive.