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?
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?
I am a little confused. It appears MWO already verify that 24m serial range as plausible for a 145.012 if the tables Eugene linked to are correct so I think you are already good there. It is the archive people you need to persuade, that may require a chat or if the records are genuinely lost it may not be possible.
I have seen enough to consider your serial correct and your watch original. As I have speculated before, during the 145.012 era, ie 1967-69, Omega were chucking in 321s and casebacks out of sequence. On another thread it was discussed how in 3 consecutive days in Oct - Nov 1968 Omega, according to the extract team produced a -68, the next day a -67 and the third Michael CollIns example for which I am not entirely sure of iteration but the -68 has a lower serial than the -67. Mine was made a day after Collins’s but is a few thousand away in numbers. Aldrins was only a couple of thousand lower but most sources consider that a 105.012-66. Of course since it is lost it is tricky to be sure.
It is messed up in that era. Perhaps they had a big box of 861s and 861 dials looming and kept finding stashes of 321s in the stock room!
In the case of @padders eample above - is there any practical difference between a -67SP and a -68SP? eg according to the extract team produced a -68, the next day a -67 and the third Michael CollIns example - is the only thing different between the 3, that the -67 in the middle had a case back saying -67?
More
Recent thinking is that the case backs got swapped in service. Unless it can be proved with original receipt. The extract does not list sub reference.
I've seen some discussion about case back swaps during service, but the replacement case back had additional numerals - eg 145.022 became 145.0022 when the case back was replaced. Did that process start earlier?
It seems pretty unlikely to me that a series of -67 watches would go for service and get a new case back with a completely different reference... but then we are talking things that might have happened 50 years ago...
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...
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...
My 145.012-68 with an EoA is serial: 26.553.xxx
My 145.012-67 with an EoA is serial: 25.440.xxx
The Speedmaster 145.012-68 you are proposing has the serial 24.53x.xxx and the EoA was denied...
IMHO: everything said
