176.007 and Cal.1040 Family Review

Cool to see all those together!
Is the Omegas beating at 28800?
Assuming the Lemania is a 21600 cal 5012?

Here's my version of the same. Lemania 5012. Case is identical to Omega, even ref number. The identical case and dial was sold as a Heuer (not mine pictured).
Heuer had a 5100 identical to the Omega FIFA.

The Lemania versions I have seen all had the cal 5012.
You would be hard pushed to spot the difference between a 5100 and a 5012, even from a dial shot, as the 24h indicator mechanism is on the dial side, and the only other difference is the gear train/balance ratio for the 21600 compared to the 28800 beat rate.

A well written story on the Heuer dealings with Lemania 5100/5012 movements. Some Omegas in there as well (Fifa):
http://www.calibre11.com/heuer-lemania-part-one/
http://www.calibre11.com/heuer-lemania-part-two/

That's right - and AJTT specifically discusses and calls that watch a 'precursor' to the Mark III line. It's all very interesting. I chose to leave it in my slides as a viable watch model for several reasons, though will be happy to have it sorted out the other direction.

One reason for leaving in the slides is the AJTT treatment, which sort of goes out of its way to declare it a legitimate version - but granted AJTT is not definitive or even accurate sometimes. Another reason for leaving it in the slides is the Omega database usage of the photo; here again, not definitive. Also, given thle "Big Blue Speed" and "Big Blue Sea" that shared the .004 reference number, it wouldn't be strictly unheard of at this time in Omega history (or with the cal.1040 generally) for Omega to have attempted some now-seemingly strange cross-pollination between the Saamasters and Speedmasters, even sharing reference numbers. Finally, I'll also have to go back through my notes, as I think there were one or two other pieces of data that pointed toward this reference's possible existence from the factory; though also not definitive, individually. Collectively, though, all these pieces certainly leave open an interesting question about this reference's existence. Accordingly, I left it in the slides, to be no less accurate than AJTT or the Omega database, and personally am agnostic on its existence.

But if you've got one, I'm certain it's fake, and I'll take it off your hands.

In case anyone arrives at this thread unfamiliar but wants more (all?) information on the cal.1045 portion of the 176.XXX family, I'll leave this right here:

http://chronomaddox.com/c1045_in_detail.html

Here is a 2004 interview with Chuck Maddox, wherein he discusses the 1040/1041 posted by fratellowatches.com (http://www.fratellowatches.com/it-has-been-three-years-since-chuck-maddox-in-memoriam/)

"c.1040/c.1041 (Lemania 1342): Kinda the odd man out in Lemania’s chronograph lineup. It has an odd “common-axial” subdial at 9 o’clock that leads to a asymmetrical subdial layout that is, well… Odd. Hard to get used to, especially if you’re used to the 5100 or Valjoux 7750 layouts. However, when you look at the movement in comparison to the 5100 the 1040/1041 is has a much nicer look and better level of finish than any 5100 I’ve seen save for the Alain Silberstein models. A very nice movement that is frequently lost in the shuffle because of it’s odd dial-layout. Aside from the odd subdial layout the one thing I really don’t care for on this base movement is the “quick change” date feature… On the c.134x models, it seems to have a heavy “camming” motion to the quick change, while on the 5100 and Valjoux 7750 it’s a light crisp “snick-snick” feel to the action. I only have one of the c.1341 model Lemania’s in a Wakmann perpetual calendar model. I haven’t been particularly impressed with the Wakmann’s performance. Perhaps I’ll sample a Tissot c.1341 in the future."

For purposes of compiling, here's a thread on another site also covering the cal.104X movements:

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/om...nds-lemania-chrono-movements-review-7388.html

I would think so. Diameter of holes should be the same at least for the main functions. Not certain about the sub register hands. And the 1045/5100 have more hands as well.

Not that this is definitive, because the Ofrei website works in mysterious ways, but doing some rough comparisons of the following two links suggests some similarities and otherwise:

http://www.ofrei.com/page1176.html

http://www.ofrei.com/page1150.html

With the Christie's "Speedmaster 50" auction gavels down, there were included several 176.XXX/cal.104X family pieces.

I'll compile them here for prosperity - including the couple of every interesting prototype watches.

Also for prosperity (and readers in the future), I should note that this particular auction saw several pieces going for a good deal more money than similar watches can currently be found through other, more traditional, means. Several speedy officionados are scratching their heads on relatively common examples at the auction, that could have instead been had at lower 'buy it now' prices elsewhere.

The prices reflected in the forthcoming pictures reflect the 'gavel' price PLUS auction commission/fees (which add an additional 25%-33% on top of the gavel price).

Speaking of prototypes, I'll start these posts with the one most interesting (which gavel price was $29,000):



I have some additional thoughts/observations on this watch (and Christie's lot notes), but for present purposes will stick with the task of reporting on the sales relevant to this thread (and return to my observations later). For now, I'll just point out that the day-date function indicates that the base movement in this prototype was likely a cal.1045, absent the 12-position sub-dial. This would have been the only Omega with such a configuration.

Next up (gavel price of $20,000), is another interesting prototype, plainly housing a cal.1045, and some more interesting lot notes from Christie's.