176.007 and Cal.1040 Family Review

cvalue13 · Dec 3, 2015

Andy K
Your thoughts on those? The pics I've seen look less than convincing to my eye- more like aftermarket redial jobs. However some of the old threads purporting to show "authentic" ones have links to pics that no longer work so I have seen very few.

I don't have much opinion on them, and only note that - bizarrely - when you search the Omega vintage database for the 176.0002 "Speedmaster" the site shows a picture of a watch that looks like a Speedy Mark III in all ways except the face of the watch reads Seamaster!

Though, the Omega vintage database has a lot of quirks, especially in its photo choices. For example, note that for the 176.0007 the website has no photo, but for the 176.0001 the website has a photo of three 176.007s (the same photo from AJTT used to demonstrate the three different available chrono rings used on the 007s):

siguzzi · Dec 3, 2015

dear cvalue13, could you please check: 1340/41 and 1040/41 don´t have a Incabloc (as listet in your review) they have a Kif Ultrafex shok adsorber!?
A member of my german Uhrforum mentioned that there has been a Lemania 1345 movement that bases on the Lemania 1340. Same base movement like the 1340 but with 5 minute indicator at 12 o´clock (5 dot´s) for sailing / regata.
Do you know anything about it ? I think Lemania, Heuer and Aquastar used it. But there is nut much to find about.
Regards
Sigi

Northernman · Dec 3, 2015

siguzzi
dear cvalue13, could you please check: 1340/41 and 1040/41 don´t have a Incabloc (as listet in your review) they have a Kif Ultrafex shok adsorber!?
A member of my german Uhrforum mentioned that there has been a Lemania 1345 movement that bases on the Lemania 1340. Same base movement like the 1340 but with 5 minute indicator at 12 o´clock (5 dot´s) for sailing / regata.
Do you know anything about it ? I think Lemania, Heuer and Aquastar used it. But there is nut much to find about.
Regards
Sigi

Lemania 1345. 15 minutes regatta fly back count down timer.

Movement details here: http://thewatchspotblog.com/?p=48

cvalue13 · Dec 3, 2015

siguzzi
dear cvalue13, could you please check: 1340/41 and 1040/41 don´t have a Incabloc (as listet in your review) they have a Kif Ultrafex shok adsorber!?

Siguzzi, mechanical intricacies of the calipers are not my strong suit, but I think there is some confusion about what my chart says.

The Lemania 1340, Omega 1040, and Omega 1041 do have inca-block.

The Lemania 1341, however, does not; instead, it has Kif.

Remember, the Lemania 1340/1341 are not synonymous with the Omega 1040/1041. Instead, the Lemania 1340 and Omega 1040/1041 are all basically the same movement (22 jewels, inca-block, etc.), whereas the Lemania 1341 is a 'reduced' version (with 17 jewels, Kif, etc.).

Northernman · Dec 3, 2015

Kif shock protection is hardly budget.
Rolex use it as a standard.
Here's a good write up: http://great-british-watch.co.uk/watch-anti-shock-settings/

cvalue13 · Dec 3, 2015

Northernman
Kif shock protection is hardly budget.
Rolex use it as a standard.
Here's a good write up: http://great-british-watch.co.uk/watch-anti-shock-settings/

Didn't mean to suggest otherwise - it's 'reduced' arguably only insofar as jewel count (for what that may be worth) and some other simplifications.

Still just trying to drive home the point that people incorrectly think the Lemania 1341 is synonymous with the Omenga 1041, in which case the former is definitely 'reduced' as compared to especially the latter.

Northernman · Dec 3, 2015

cvalue13
Didn't mean to suggest otherwise - it's 'reduced' arguably only insofar as jewel count (for what that may be worth) and some other simplifications.

Still just trying to drive home the point that people think the Lemania 1341 is synonymous with the Omenga 1041, in which case the former is definitely 'reduced' as compared to especially the latter.

Fully supported! Omegas nomenclature is not compatible with Lemanias.
Imagine the disappointment if you compared a 1045 to a 1345😀
The 1041 was the worlds first chronometer rated automatic chronograph movement. A feat indeed!

cvalue13 · Dec 3, 2015

Here's another non-Omega brand that used the Lemania cal.1340 (which is a differently-branded version of the Deffa watch in the review):

siguzzi · Dec 4, 2015

cvalue13
Siguzzi, mechanical intricacies of the calipers are not my strong suit, but I think there is some confusion about what my chart says.

The Lemania 1340, Omega 1040, and Omega 1041 do have inca-block.

The Lemania 1341, however, does not; instead, it has Kif.

Remember, the Lemania 1340/1341 are not synonymous with the Omega 1040/1041. Instead, the Lemania 1340 and Omega 1040/1041 are all basically the same movement (22 jewels, inca-block, etc.), whereas the Lemania 1341 is a 'reduced' version (with 17 jewels, Kif, etc.).

I just checked some pictures of 1340 and 1341 and I´ve got to say sorry. You´re absolutly right. 1340 has Incabloc and 1341 has Kif.
It´s very easy to check wich one you´ve got. The 1341 hasn´t got the big screw for the fine adjustement.
Thank´s
Sigi

Andy K · Dec 4, 2015

cvalue13
I don't have much opinion on them, and only note that - bizarrely - when you search the Omega vintage database for the 176.0002 "Speedmaster" the site shows a picture of a watch that looks like a Speedy Mark III in all ways except the face of the watch reads Seamaster!

Though, the Omega vintage database has a lot of quirks, especially in its photo choices. For example, note that for the 176.0007 the website has no photo, but for the 176.0001 the website has a photo of three 176.007s (the same photo from AJTT used to demonstrate the three different available chrono rings used on the 007s):

You bring up a couple of interesting points.

One is regarding the "Seamaster 176.0002" in the vintage database, which is the same one pictured in AJTT. I have spent a lot of time thinking about that watch. It’s a really strange choice to be the one they use in the vintage database for the simple fact that that case reference is known primarily for being part of the Speedmaster family - and an important part of the family (the first self-winding Speedy) at that. And even if one believes in the existence of real/correct dials with both "Seamaster" and "Mark III" on the dial, it is notable that this one doesn't even say "Mark III" on it. And again, 176.002/176.0002 are references synonymous with the term "Mark III" and the Speedmaster family. So using it in the Vintage Database is bizarre, even if real. I assume that the person in charge of populating the database wasn't that familiar with the reference and just snagged the first pic from AJTT without further diligence.

Personally, I'm hesitant to pass judgement on the authenticity/correctness of that particular piece. But I will say this - If a nearly identical watch came for sale on eBay, the forums, or any other venue I'd pass under the assumption someone just added a dial from a 007 to a 002 case. Partly because it is so easy to mod these common references into something that appears really rare, but also something else you bring up - those quirks in the database.

Really, it brings up the larger question of just how credible AJTT and the Omega Museum actually are as sources of absolute truth. I'm not claiming to have any specific knowledge, and I'm just some guy so their word carries tons more weight than mine. But as you pointed out, there are errors on the database. There are also known errors in AJTT involving watches that are redials or blatant fakes (those vintage Seamaster 300s with "stubbies"). I'm not suggesting that this is conclusively the case with any of the 1040s featured but it is possible.

Finally, we know that the curators are just humans and have to make judgement calls themselves, and they acquire their pieces just like we do from sources like eBay. I trust they are doing their best to acquire pieces that are representative of Omegas long history including the uncommon references, and would never intentionally put something in the collection that they deem to be unoriginal but they have made mistakes. They are an important and authoritative source, but not 100% perfect either.

cvalue13 · Dec 4, 2015

Andy K
They are an important and authoritative source, but not 100% perfect either.

No doubt that the Omega database is not a great or even good source. We idiots here can forget that Omega is in the business of making money off of current watches, not reliving their past in intricate detail.

I tend to agree that period advertisement and marketing materials are the best way to vet matching watches, but also don't exclude as incorrect other variations that just happened to not make it into those materials.

When it comes to the 007 and its family, this entire topic may be among the reasons they are unique compared to other more sought after watches. Specifically, unlike many other watches, the 007 was made to produced to povide many dial variations and so permits of that much more heartburn. Perhaps only the connies wide variations are comparable?

Andy K · Dec 4, 2015

siguzzi
dear cvalue13, could you please check: 1340/41 and 1040/41 don´t have a Incabloc (as listet in your review) they have a Kif Ultrafex shok adsorber!?
A member of my german Uhrforum mentioned that there has been a Lemania 1345 movement that bases on the Lemania 1340. Same base movement like the 1340 but with 5 minute indicator at 12 o´clock (5 dot´s) for sailing / regata.
Do you know anything about it ? I think Lemania, Heuer and Aquastar used it. But there is nut much to find about.
Regards
Sigi

Sigi:

Here are links about some cal. 1345 watches:
http://www.regatta-yachttimers.com/brands/lemania/

Your question jogged my memory, because I had forgotten there was an Omega prototype that used cal. 1345 as well in 2001. More pics here: http://www.regatta-yachttimers.com/brands/omega/ and one from AJTT:

My understanding is that Omega and Lemania showed this cal. 1345 prototype at Basel in 2001 but never released it. At Basel 2003 they released the Seamaster Apnea, but it used a 39 jewel movement (cal. 3601, base ETA 2982-A2).

Northernman · Dec 5, 2015

Andy K
Sigi:

Here are links about some cal. 1345 watches:
http://www.regatta-yachttimers.com/brands/lemania/

Your question jogged my memory, because I had forgotten there was an Omega prototype that used cal. 1345 as well in 2001. More pics here: http://www.regatta-yachttimers.com/brands/omega/ and one from AJTT:

My understanding is that Omega and Lemania showed this cal. 1345 prototype at Basel in 2001 but never released it. At Basel 2003 they released the Seamaster Apnea, but it used a 39 jewel movement (cal. 3601, base ETA 2982-A2).

As far as I know Omega actually delivered a few to Australia. They sponsored a sailing event and the watches was sold/given to the participants.
I was attempting to purchase one a few years ago.

Joe K. · Dec 5, 2015

Great writeup! Here is a picture I put together trying to illustrate the difference between the 176.001 and the 176.007

Andy K · Dec 5, 2015

Northernman
As far as I know Omega actually delivered a few to Australia. They sponsored a sailing event and the watches was sold/given to the participants.
I was attempting to purchase one a few years ago.

Very interesting, thanks! Might be the rarest Omega in the 1040 (extended) family.

Andy K · Dec 5, 2015

Joe K.
Great writeup! Here is a picture I put together trying to illustrate the difference between the 176.001 and the 176.007

Is the chrono minute hand missing on that 001?

Northernman · Dec 5, 2015

Andy K
Very interesting, thanks! Might be the rarest Omega in the 1040 (extended) family.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f441/omega-regatta-569870.html

Andy K · Dec 5, 2015

Northernman
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f441/omega-regatta-569870.html

Thanks! Odd that AJTT mentions this being shown at Basel 2001 when this link clearly demonstrates this watch being from 1986. Makes much more sense - that case style was not very 2001.

Northernman · Dec 5, 2015

Andy K
Thanks! Odd that AJTT mentions this being shown at Basel 2001 when this link clearly demonstrates this watch being from 1986. Makes much more sense - that case style was not very 2001.

2001 makes no sense at all.
The 1345 is a child of the 80s.
The Lemania Elvström was the most elaborate as it also have tactical functions embedded. It was even patented:

Joe K. · Dec 5, 2015

Could be. Not my watch, I found the image a while back.

Andy K
Is the chrono minute hand missing on that 001?

176.007 and Cal.1040 Family Review

cvalue13

siguzzi

Northernman

cvalue13

Northernman

cvalue13

Northernman

cvalue13

siguzzi

Andy K

cvalue13

Andy K

Northernman

Joe K.

Andy K

Andy K

Northernman

Andy K

Northernman

Joe K.

Similar threads

Omega Automatic Seamaster chronograph ref 176.007 cal 1040. Fresh service.

Omega Seamaster cal.1040 (176.007) Blue-Black Dial on 1170 bracelet US$1750