145.003 Whats the Story?

The 105.003 replaced the 105.002 in 1962.

I first saw references to the 145.003 in various fora, and then in “A Journey Through Time”. However I have never held one, and it is very hard to find an image of one.

While researching I found this:

cat-145.003
A prime example of why contemporary Omega literature cannot be used for reference. This clearly shows an asymmetric case labeled 145.003. Photo from internet.

Print media of the time are notorious for illustrating watches of one reference with another. In the example above what is labeled as a 145.003 is in fact more likely a 105.012 with its asymmetric case and short pushers. (Although the dial is a non pro). I suppose in the 1960’s print runs took a lot longer, and the photos of the actual watches may not have been available. Often the watches were drawn, not photographed.

Several owners have published copies of extracts of 145.003’s but so far only one I can find is marked with 145.003, all are otherwise marked 105.003. There is no mention of the reference 145.003 in the watch itself. Typically they all show extracts with 105.003 and case backs with 145.003:

In all examples I have been able to find, all but one are marked in the back 105.003. I have found one example where the number 145.003 has been added, in an obviously font – and I cannot say by whom. I have seen this double referencing by Omega in the 105.012/145.012 and it is entirely possible these are factory markings – I have seen many examples of this:

Double reference case back from my collection. Here we see clearly the two references were not applied in the same way, and probably not the same time. I believe this was done by the factory.
Double reference case back from my collection. Here we see clearly the two references were not applied in the same way, and probably not the same time. I believe this was done by the factory.

Here is the only example I can find of the 145.003 where it is marked in the back. Again, like the example above it is marked in two different styles. Unlike the example above I have never seen another.

145003 double
105.003 with 145.003 also marked in the case back with a different font. While I am ready to believe this is a factory inscription, I do not understand why it is not seen in any other examples if indeed it is a factory protocol to engrave it.

Therefore I conclude that the 145.003 is simply an new internal numerical allocation (starting circa 1967) by Omega for the 105.003, and that the number 145.003 was not added to the watch by Omega themselves.

I am a collector, who wishes one day to own every reference up to the 145.022-78. Would I want a 145.003? That’s hard, because I am still in two minds as to whether it is a “real” reference!

References:

Here in no particular order, are some links to discussions about 145.003’s:

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/speedmaster-pre-pro-145-003-new-arrival-64089-3.html

https://omegaforums.net/threads/omega-speedmaster-st145-003-anyone-else-have-one.9399/