41northpole
420
I see
Hi Graham,
I see what you mean. Would be interesting to know why it may have been changed though? The tritium seems to match very well between the dial and hands. I mentioned to you by PM that my second hand had a slightly different location for the lozenge to yours.
All this stuff is so old, it's surprising to me that any of it has made it through the last 40-odd years. I bet when they were first manufactured the best the companies would have hoped for was for them to last a decade or so.
I never expected to be able to get a Speedy this old, this watch just arrived in front of me one day without any planning. So much fun when that happens.
Regards
Tim
My newest but oldest speedy
Mine is a year out compared to Grahams, and unfortunately not my year of birth (1960) but lovely non the less. Disconcerting though that it's 44 years old, and younger than me!!! Hope you like the pics Hope you enjoy these, I'll try another time to show i...
Tim, great watch, but are you aware that the centre sec hand is incorrect?
the hand you have comes from the 145.012(the assymetric) from 1966. very common problem it seems. dont know why, but perhaps they get damaged easily. the way to tell it to look at the bottom end of the hand and compare it to mine. yours is fatter and flat...
I see
Hi Graham, I see what you mean. Would be interesting to know why it may have been changed though? The tritium seems to match very well between the dial and hands. I mentioned to you by PM that my second hand had a slightly different location for the lozen...
Good eye, Graham . . .
. . . is it probable that the entire handset has been replaced at some time? I can't tell much of a difference in age between the various hands . . . curiously, Art