WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,562 Posts
thanks for sharing your pics, still looking good after all these years. love the inside shots what a great looking movement these are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,979 Posts
Omega Speedmaster Professional 145.012 - The first watch worn on the moon . . .
Uhhh, don't think so. But it's still a nice watch and we know that a 145.012 did in fact circle the moon in the Apollo XI command module. |>

Fr. John†
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Uhhh, don't think so. But it's still a nice watch and we know that a 145.012 did in fact circle the moon in the Apollo XI command module. |>

Fr. John†
Really? I thought that Buzz Aldrin had a 145.012 and Neil Armstrong had a 105.012, but Armstrong left his in the LEV during the moonwalk? I've read a lot about that?

Buzz Aldrin Speedmaster has the following information: Calibre 321, Case # 145.012
- Speedmaster qualification

The Omega Speedmaster was the first watch worn on the moon, as Buzz Aldrin wore his Speedmaster 145.012 fitted with the Omega 321 caliber on July 20, 1969. (Neil Armstrong left his Speedmaster inside the lunar module Eagle during his famous first walk).
- Omega Speedmaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,680 Posts
Amazing that the tritium dial still glows! Nice watch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,979 Posts
Really? I thought that Buzz Aldrin had a 145.012 and Neil Armstrong had a 105.012, but Armstrong left his in the LEV during the moonwalk? I've read a lot about that?

Buzz Aldrin Speedmaster has the following information: Calibre 321, Case # 145.012
- Speedmaster qualification

The Omega Speedmaster was the first watch worn on the moon, as Buzz Aldrin wore his Speedmaster 145.012 fitted with the Omega 321 caliber on July 20, 1969. (Neil Armstrong left his Speedmaster inside the lunar module Eagle during his famous first walk).
- Omega Speedmaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an issue the late Chuck Maddox and others spent years researching without any resolution.

Aldrin's Speedy was "lost" in shipment to the Smithsonian so until it is found and authenticated, no one knows for certain which model he wore.

Wikipedia cites Speedmaster-Mission.Net as its authority but Speedmaster-Mission.Net cites no authority. It merely makes an unsupported statement.

On this list obtained from Chuck before his untimely death, you will note "?" marks on the "Aldrin - Apollo XI" line:



The information on this list has all been authenticated except for the watch Aldrin wore on the moon. Here is the list compiled by the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal which also questions the fact that Aldrin's was a 145.012: NASA flown Speedmasters

In an interview, Aldrin said his Apollo XI Speedy was the same watch he wore on Gemini XII which most likely was a 105.003.

So for now, all we know for certain is that Armstrong's 105.012 was aboard the Eagle on the surface of the moon. Perhaps some day we will know what model Buzz wore during his EVA.

In any event, enjoy your "precious" knowing that it might indeed have been the model first worn on the moon. We just don't know for sure.

Fr. John†
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,480 Posts
Congratulations on that '67 Speedy. For me that would be a birth year Speedy and one that I would like to own one day. That one looks like ACH5's former Speedmaster he had for sale on the Sales Corner. I remember the ding at the top of the bezel near the 12. I am amazed the lume still works, and that stepped dial is just wow!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,617 Posts
Well, whether or not it is the moon watch model, it's very nice - love that dial and the bezel has seen some action! Are you keeping it as is, or going for the restoration?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,384 Posts
Perfect! Don't change a thing. . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Well, whether or not it is the moon watch model, it's very nice - love that dial and the bezel has seen some action! Are you keeping it as is, or going for the restoration?
On this is staying as is. If I was going to restore it, I would have gotten a new 3572. I love the aged look to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Matt, I am super glad you received the watch. Hope it delivers as much enjoyment to you as it did to me. The pics look fantastic and have captured the character really well.

Atb,

Ray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Iconic modell anyway, no one probably knows for 100% where the true is... enjoy!

The table Fr.John has attached is well known to me, but as Maddox (RIP) was not allways sure, this "official SN table" also looks perfect, but there are some things that are strange to me: for example how could W.Schirra wore on Gemini 6 mission watch model 145.022 cal.861, SN 29XXXXX, probably made 1969, delivered to NYC 04/1970, if the mission Gemini 6 was in 1965? The same story with Staffords watch on this mission...
In the upper rows is 105.003 mentioned for this mission, which looks to be correct...
Has anybody made some research abou this document? As it looks bulletproof, but some obvious mistakes can be found there.

Correct me if I´m wrong and excuse my english, as it is my third language ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,617 Posts
Correct me if I´m wrong and excuse my english, as it is my third language ;)
Third language! I'm still getting to grips with it, and it's my only language!

Interesting observations re the table. I'm surprised that hasn't been brought up in the past if correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Third language! I'm still getting to grips with it, and it's my only language!

Interesting observations re the table. I'm surprised that hasn't been brought up in the past if correct.
Well, one language is enough, but it has to be english, as 2/3 of the world speaks English.
No chance for me to speak just my motherly language, as we are small nation ;)

I think the table is allmost correct, this error caught my eye, because I was surprised, that the 145.022 went into space in that era.
Another strange thing is, that some movements SN starting 205XXXXX are stated as 145.012, but I mean that this SN belongs better to the older ref 105,003....
But anyway who cares, the Holy Bible is also full of mistakes, so nothing to bother about ;)
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top