Thank you in advance to the community and all those that continue to help many of us learn. I have a deposit on the watch pictured below. A 145.012 that is described as complete with box and papers and purchased from the original owner. I have a copy of the MWO book and have reviewed the watch against the MWO references and to my still untrained eyes everything appears to be in order, serial number range, DON, 1039 with 516 end links, flat seconds hand, spaced T dial (missing lume), pushers, caseback, case appears unpolished.

For the papers the medallion booklet is included with the information filled out from the retailer. The serial number listed on the medallion card matches the movement number and appears in the correct range. However the reference number written by the retailer indicates 6126 which I believe would be a reference to a seamaster of the same time period and also a cal 321. The dealer I am working with indicated this is not uncommon to see, but to me it seems odd.

Questions:
- Have others heard of this or seen before, or do you think this is more likely to mean the papers are actually from a seamaster and the movement has been swapped?
- Is the only way to resolve by getting the archives from Omega?
- Am I missing anything else? From the movement picture I also noted that part 321.1774 (p 42 of MWO) is not shown in the picture. The watch was being serviced when the pictures were taken and I also need to verify if it had been removed.

Thank you,

 

Papers are tough. Try not to get too caught up in whether they're original or not. I could understand a jeweler making a mistake just as much as someone faking papers..

As for the watch, the dial is the tough part. Not the nicest dial what with the lume gone. I can't tell from the pics if there are any other imperfections. I'd ask for higher rez head on pics. It's not horrible. Some people like the scraped, some don't. Some would relume, some would not.

If you have concerns about the movement, definitely sort that out.

From there, it's mainly about price. Is price in line with speedmaster101.com price chart? Remember that the chart is head only.

 

This one is interesting because everything looks correct on the watch, even the flat foot crown which is seldom seen anymore. However the Seamaster ref on the warranty card seems to raise the exact issue that you mentioned. Someone put a cheaper Seamaster 321 movement into a speedy case. Not sure on that one without getting an extract from Omega. Does the dealer offer a return policy? Then you could order an extract and if it comes back as a Seamaster you could return it.

 

Thanks, and no other imperfections on the dial other than the loss of lume. Dial looks outstanding other than the partial lume that has flaked off and the partial that is remaining.

 

Thanks, I was thinking the same thing regarding the return and need to verify.

 

Probably best to have the watchmaker ensure there's no loose lume and make sure none of the lume has gotten into the movement - which would be done if it is in fact getting serviced.

The advice about getting an extract is also good. I can't find much about a ref 6126 though.. just one post on instagram. Is that a real reference? Anyway, always good to be sure via extract.

 

6126 was the US model designation for the Speedmaster with crown guard. See link:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...//www.omegawatches.com/news/news-detail/1626/
-------------
Were any changes in the Speedmaster (related either to comfort or engineering requirements) mandated by NASA?



No, NASA never mandated any changes to OMEGA. However, the first chronographs that NASA bought were model 6049 (USA designation). These were to be used for the Gemini program. I found during crew usage for training and flight that it was very easy to bend or break the chronograph function buttons on the side. The case did not provide any protection for them. I asked OMEGA to consider redesigning the case to provide a little recess to better protect these buttons. OMEGA willingly redesigned the case and this configuration became the new version of the chronograph. It has the exact same movement – just a different case. This model was designated 6126 (USA designation). The model 6049 was used throughout Gemini and I started using the model 6126 model for Apollo and beyond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

6126 is the sale/catalog ref. number not the case ref. number. The missing part (hour recorder yoke) is more concerning.

Scan from a 1974 catalog:

 

Nice watch except the Lume

 

Thank you much. Guess I did not dig deep enough.

 

Thank you