Community Stories

145.022-69 Production date and case back inconsistency

blubarb
Posts
3,778
Likes
8,593
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
 
ryanbk
Posts
214
Likes
995
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...
 
efauser
Posts
8,710
Likes
14,611
ryanbk ryanbk
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...
That's what I determined, with very little research.
 
blubarb
Posts
3,778
Likes
8,593
ryanbk ryanbk
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...

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.
 
efauser
Posts
8,710
Likes
14,611
blubarb blubarb
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.
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.
 
blubarb
Posts
3,778
Likes
8,593
efauser efauser
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.
Thank you.
 
efauser
Posts
8,710
Likes
14,611
blubarb blubarb
Thank you.
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.
 
Davidt
Posts
11,962
Likes
20,803
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:
 
gdupree
Posts
905
Likes
1,594
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
Posts
3,778
Likes
8,593
gdupree gdupree
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.

Well assumed. March 12, 1971 👍
 
Cal_321
Posts
277
Likes
429
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...
 
Caliber561
Posts
1,506
Likes
2,582
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?
 
gdupree
Posts
905
Likes
1,594
Cal_321 Cal_321
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...
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
 
oddboy
Posts
9,217
Likes
24,051
An extract won't specify the subreferemce (date stamp) unfortunately, so won't tell you much.
 
MaiLollo
Posts
1,560
Likes
4,419
oddboy oddboy
An extract won't specify the subreferemce (date stamp) unfortunately, so won't tell you much.
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 😁
 
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

Frederic_gva

Omega Speedmaster ref 145.022-69 produced on Jan 8th 1971. 31’003’175 serial

Frederic_gva Private Watch Sales
Frederic_gva
Frederic_gva
Posts
16
Views
18K