OK - I bought a -68 Speedmaster with what looks like a too-early serial number, as if it was from a 105.012 or even 105.003 (it's 24537xxx).

I applied for an extract and Omega quickly bounced it saying they didn't have the records; that and the fact that a respected watchmaker (who got the watch directly from the auctioneer) says it looks like it'd never been serviced or even opened, makes me convinced it's not a franken, but likely to be an errant batch of watches that were maybe using up old stock 321 movements with early serials, before the runout of the 145.012 and into the 145.022 with the 861 movement.

Is that credible? I'm sure I've seen 2 or 3 other watches being discussed that are marked -68SP on the case back, look like they stack up in other regards, but appear to have a serial number that is well outside of the expected range for a 68, at least if you look at MWO / ILMS or other well loved sources of knowledge.

If anyone else has a similar (24m - maybe even 2453xxxx as I know of 2 in that range) numbered -68s, please let us know for the benefit of the Speedy community...

 

Not exactly what you asking for, but my 105.003-65 (01/67 clasp) with 24.95m serial, comes back as June 1967 from the ILMS prediction, so I don't see why a slightly earlier movement would not of found its way into a '68 Transitional, particularly knowing what Omega (& Rolex) were like with constituent parts at this time.

 

FWIW, a -68 transitional would be a 145.022-68, with an 861 movement

There's certainly overlap between model years and the like - the specific query here is why some -68s have serials fairly early in the 145.012 production numbers, whereas other -67s are known to be later...

 

Why not apply for an extract with the two earlier references to see if either turns up?That'll give you more info whether the movement is from an earlier case or whether they actually don't have records.

 

I'm firmly in the Occam's razor camp im afraid.

Your scenario is entirely possible but it assumes that a) there's an unknown batch of 321's fitted to -68's, and b) that there are missing records for this previously unknown batch. Although I suppose one could argue that a) may well lead to b).

However, imo the most likely scenario is that the movement was swapped in from another ref, as this has no assumptions other than the work being carried out by a skilled watchmaker.

 

I tell them the number they tell you the case reference, thats how it works for me any way.

 

Here's mine, case back photo to follow, 145.012-68.

 

I got the same email back saying my serial fell into the lost category... I guess what I'm looking to do is to figure out if there are a handful of examples like this (in which case, it might well be that the movements had been swapped at some point in the watches' lives) but if there are more than a few, there could be a body of evidence to say that there was an anomaly. Just like the observed ranges that say brown dials occur, or Ultraman watches fall, or 145.003s or whatever...

 

What happens if you request an extract for a movement without giving a reference number?

 

Most of the known 1450.12-68s are in the 26.55m serial if I’m correct ? Mine is

 

Good question - the ref number is an optional field when you ask for an extract.

I've just repeated my request and provided only the movement number - let's see what happens … they should bounce it in a few days if it's not going through...

 

Well I guess that's the point - some of them appear not to be, so it would be good to try to figure out how many

 

According to ILMS, a 24537XXX serial predicts an extract of April 1967 so it doesn't seem crazy that it would be installed in a -68 as a leftover movement. But let's see what other examples turn up.

 

Have you tried calling them ? Ewan

Even the reception desk speaks perfect English

I have the direct ‘Archives’ number if you need it ?

 

Well it’s a 321... not like omega did later 321’s or the serial is a parts swap from an 861 ...


@skipper transitionals are 861’s with all of the features of the 321 watches. Ie applied metal dials. They are the only 861’s that have the AML until much later limited editions. Hence why they are called transitional. 861 and 321 dials are not easily interchangeable as they have different lengths on the dial feet.

 

I never give a reference number I want the information they have about the movement, like it or lump it.

 

http://www.moonwatchonly.com/omega-...view-of-the-speedmaster-moonwatch-production/

Table A clearly shows batches before AND after the batch yours was in to be assigned to a couple sub references, including 145.012’s.

Table B, last row does as well (but includes your range).

THEN,

Omega have confirmed ‘lost info’ on this batch (might also be indicative of what I mention above regarding table A having SN’s in batches before and after yours).

Simons eyes I believe are excellent (apart from staring at these watches all day for decades he doesn’t wear glasses, and is a teetotaler (respect)).

I think your theory is plausible, and your watch is good.

Edit : not that my opinion is worth more than $0.02

 

Thanks Eugene - I presume that the curators of MWO's serial number tables just need evidence of more than a few watches in a given range existing, then they'd update?