Forums Latest Members

145.022-69 Production date and case back inconsistency

  1. blubarb Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    3,579
    Likes
    8,060
    Is it possible to have a Production Date of 1971 (Based on the Archive Extract) and a case back ref No. 145.022-69 and a serial 31.317.xxx? If so how could this come about? I have heard that the Production date should be considered the delivery date, but that does seem counter-intuitive to the meaning of production. Alternatively I have heard that when considering the case back reference one or two years either side of the case back ref is to be the manufactured range.

    Appreciate your thoughts.

    Thanks in advance
     
  2. efauser I ♥ karma!!! Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    8,644
    Likes
    14,210
  3. ryanbk Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    214
    Likes
    993
    Pretty sure that all matches up... The casecback - 69 is when the case was produced and the production date from the extract (71) is was when the whole watch was produced/assembled. And a 31.317xxxx serial number fits nicely with the late production...
    Please correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I think these are correlated...
     
    blubarb likes this.
  4. efauser I ♥ karma!!! Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    8,644
    Likes
    14,210
    That's what I determined, with very little research.
     
    blubarb likes this.
  5. blubarb Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    3,579
    Likes
    8,060
  6. blubarb Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    3,579
    Likes
    8,060
    Thanks. I was thinking along these lines as well. So I wonder how we should really refer to the date of watch when selling? Obviously most refer to the reference which makes sense as that is the model, but to sell as a '69 seems an ambiguous claim.
     
  7. efauser I ♥ karma!!! Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    8,644
    Likes
    14,210
    Technically it is a 69 because that's the reference number. Just happens to be a 145.022-69 model that was produced in 1971. Probably using up the remaining 145.022-69 cases or backs, before the 145.022-71 models rolled off the assembly line.
     
    Caliber561 and blubarb like this.
  8. blubarb Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    3,579
    Likes
    8,060
    Thank you.
     
  9. efauser I ♥ karma!!! Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    8,644
    Likes
    14,210
    You're welcome. Understand that it's just a guess on my part but it seems logical. Which is precisely why I may be wrong.
     
    blubarb likes this.
  10. Davidt Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    10,309
    Likes
    17,882
    The -69 isn't actually the date, it's the sub reference. They just used the date of when that batch of references came out. This took over from the previous type of sub ref which was -1, -2 etc.

    It's a -69 ref produced in 71.
     
    Edited Feb 11, 2018
  11. gdupree Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    902
    Likes
    1,560
    Yes, as others have mentioned, the production date mentioned on the extract indicates the date that the watch was fully assembled. I.e. the movement and other parts were manufactured and delivered to omega at an earlier date, and then it was assembled on the date on your extract, and then shipped from the manufacturer after that.

    Out of curiosity, what is the exact production date of your -69? I assume in early ‘71.
     
    blubarb likes this.
  12. blubarb Feb 11, 2018

    Posts
    3,579
    Likes
    8,060
    Well assumed. March 12, 1971 :thumbsup:
     
  13. Cal_321 Feb 13, 2018

    Posts
    277
    Likes
    427
    I got a 71 which 309xxxx serial is lower than a 69 straight writing which I bought a few weeks ago. Omega had no perfect working fifo system...
     
  14. Caliber561 Feb 13, 2018

    Posts
    1,473
    Likes
    2,511
    If I remember correctly, wasn't this sort of discrepancy the result of movements being made separately from the other parts and being assembled sort of on a whim?
     
  15. gdupree Feb 13, 2018

    Posts
    902
    Likes
    1,560
    I believe that is generally accepted to be outside of the range for a 145.022-71. The observed range for that reference doesn't start until into the 31.xxx.xxx's

    You should get an extract to know for sure, I would strongly suspect that it was produced prior to 1971
     
  16. oddboy Zero to Grail+2998 In Six Months Feb 13, 2018

    Posts
    9,217
    Likes
    23,877
    An extract won't specify the subreferemce (date stamp) unfortunately, so won't tell you much.
     
    Cal_321 and MaiLollo like this.
  17. MaiLollo Feb 13, 2018

    Posts
    1,560
    Likes
    4,331
    That's a problem, but also a "relief".
    We can't know for sure which caseback references are correct for certain serial numbers because the watches were being assembled with more than one caseback at certain points in history, if I've got it right.
    I think we should just embrace the inconsistency as a part of the past and give the benefit of the doubt to certain "borderline" -69/-71/-74s...

    PS: I don't own such a borderline serial numbered watch :D
     
    blubarb likes this.