- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·Following on the above, it's more than worth including this link for anyone interested in more on Russian watches in space, including the cal.1040s, from @SpeedyPhill
176.007 and Cal.1040 Family Review
- Posts
- 1,819
- Likes
- 5,911
Andy K
·Interesting stuff!
I don't really have any thoughts or insight on the preferences of the Russians or why NASA stuck with the standard Speedmaster, but I have spent way too long trying to figure out what (in the 1040 family) came out and when....Click here for a way too long examination of the topic.
I wrote that in 2016, and since then documented a lot more stuff. I just went through my notes and here's what I know:
- I have not seen proof of any 1040s actually being produced in 1971.
-The earliest extract I've seen had a production date February 24, 1972. It was for a Mark III - with a Professional dial.
-I have had discussions with 3 people that said they had at one time owned or had seen an extract for a 1040 dating to 1971. One was for a Mark III. However, they didn't have photos so no way of proving it to me....
-The 1971 date so often cited for the 1040 family is based on the technical guide dated November 1, 1971 (you can see it in the linked article).
-Others say 1970, but that is due to a patent related to the movement that was issued in late December 1970, which to me just means it was in development that early.
-Still others will point to general "serial number by year" charts found around the web to claim the 1040 to be earlier than it is. I could write an article longer than the one I linked to explaining why those charts are useless for the 1040 family, but for the sake of time let's just all agree that those charts are flawed at best. 😁
Anyway my sense is that it is very possible that there were 1040s being produced in late 1971, including the Mark III. When I sort my database by serial number, the majority of the lowest are ref. 176.001 but there are -002s and 007s sprinkled in. My hunch is all three were the first wave of production 1040s, announced to dealers in the fall of 1970 (when the technical guide was created) just in time for Christmas. These all were in the 3164XXXX range (aside from two outliers with 3000XXXX - those are really hard to explain). The 176.001s appear to be discontinued about halfway through the 3164XXXX production, in March of 1972. By August of 1972, 1040s were in the 3424XXXX range.
Interestingly, it is in that 3424XXXX range that the next wave of releases start appearing frequently: gold-plated 176.007s and Big Blue 176.004s.
-> Discussing the Mark III being the first automatic Speedmaster, the author states the Mark III was launched in 1971. I'm dubious of the 1971 exactness with respect to the Mark III; while the cal.1040 (in the form of the 176.007) can more certainly be attributed to 1971, I don't know of anything confirming the Mark III (an offering made subsequent to the 176.007) having also left the gates within 1971. My bet (as reflected in the genealogy in the post at the top of this thread), places the Mark III as more likely a 1972 offering. But, perhaps a Russian space enthusiast may be able to correlate a 1971 photograph of cosmonauts wearing a Mark III, and lay that uncertainty to rest?
I don't really have any thoughts or insight on the preferences of the Russians or why NASA stuck with the standard Speedmaster, but I have spent way too long trying to figure out what (in the 1040 family) came out and when....Click here for a way too long examination of the topic.
I wrote that in 2016, and since then documented a lot more stuff. I just went through my notes and here's what I know:
- I have not seen proof of any 1040s actually being produced in 1971.
-The earliest extract I've seen had a production date February 24, 1972. It was for a Mark III - with a Professional dial.
-I have had discussions with 3 people that said they had at one time owned or had seen an extract for a 1040 dating to 1971. One was for a Mark III. However, they didn't have photos so no way of proving it to me....
-The 1971 date so often cited for the 1040 family is based on the technical guide dated November 1, 1971 (you can see it in the linked article).
-Others say 1970, but that is due to a patent related to the movement that was issued in late December 1970, which to me just means it was in development that early.
-Still others will point to general "serial number by year" charts found around the web to claim the 1040 to be earlier than it is. I could write an article longer than the one I linked to explaining why those charts are useless for the 1040 family, but for the sake of time let's just all agree that those charts are flawed at best. 😁
Anyway my sense is that it is very possible that there were 1040s being produced in late 1971, including the Mark III. When I sort my database by serial number, the majority of the lowest are ref. 176.001 but there are -002s and 007s sprinkled in. My hunch is all three were the first wave of production 1040s, announced to dealers in the fall of 1970 (when the technical guide was created) just in time for Christmas. These all were in the 3164XXXX range (aside from two outliers with 3000XXXX - those are really hard to explain). The 176.001s appear to be discontinued about halfway through the 3164XXXX production, in March of 1972. By August of 1972, 1040s were in the 3424XXXX range.
Interestingly, it is in that 3424XXXX range that the next wave of releases start appearing frequently: gold-plated 176.007s and Big Blue 176.004s.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·- I have not seen proof of any 1040s actually being produced in 1971.
You most certainly have a better view on exact dates based on all your great data-collection.
I wonder, there is also some static in the discussion regarding distinctions between "produced," "offered for sale," and "actually delivered."
My reasoning here (to the extent it can be credited as reasoning) has been two fold, though the most important of them I don't have on hand.
The missing piece is that I have a clear (but faulty) memory that one of the Omega catalogues contained at least the .001 if not also the .007, and was dated 1971. Admittedly, I can't find that on hand - but if I'd seen it, it would have been with the 'old-omegas' catalogues referenced in photos in my original post above.
The second piece was the strand of reasoning that (A) the Lemania 1340 and Omega 1040 were pretty clearly created in 1970, (B) that the .007 was among the 1972 collection is clear, (C) the .007 'replaced' the .001 (assumedly not within, or well within, the same calendar year, as the .001 I've not seen associated alongside any 1972 collection information), and so (D) at the very least, the .001 was being 'produced' if not 'offered for sale' if not 'delivered' in 1971, before being replaced by the .007 in the 1972 collection catalogues (and may have even been 'produced' in 1971 before being 'offered for sale' or 'delivered' in 1972). On that reasoning, my view had been the .001 was probably sold and delivered during 1971, even if other models had begun 'production' in 1971 but not sold until 1972.
Your reasoning and data calls much of that into question, and as is right since my reasoning was by no means unassailable. In any event perhaps one day we'll find a linchpin that solves it.
Back to the video: I see a number of folks online suggest the Mark III was "launched" or "introduced" in 1971, which I guess depends on (1) what they mean by "launched" etc., and (2) whether there's any conflation with the cal.1040 generally with the Mark III specifically.
- Posts
- 423
- Likes
- 1,807
Adri
·To get a bit more attention to this fantastic thread😀.
A normal watch story of a watch geek😗.
In early 2020 I bought my first 176.007 and I was so tempted, that I thought it would be nice to have also the silver dial version of the 176.007.
In November I found an example on a local auction platform.
Here the original pics of the listing.
First I was really unsure if I should bid on it due to the lack of good pictures, no movement pic etc.
Description was “Family heirloom, non working condition but with papers”.
At the end I thought many others will be also very critical and they will not bid on it or very low. So I set a price limit and won the auction
.
Here what I got 🙄
A hugh scratched crystal (fortunately not the case except one scratch on the lower right corner)
A lot wrist cheese on the case and on a unusual 1162 with 604 endlinks🤮
As I opened the watch I had the half gasket on my hands and saw it’s a double reference.
The movement was dirty and obviously complete dry so I haven't thought on a quick fix at this evening.
I polished the crystal, removed the seal and cleaned the bracelet.
I was really happy with the result and the watch.
A very nice first owner 176.001/176.007 with early hands, probably produced in 1972, with last service for $100 in Nov. 1981 and original papers🥰.
Found a nice original handset to replace the old and grimy hands.
Everything went to my watchmaker and after a few weeks I got the first pictures☕. As expected everything was very dirty and dry. He mentioned only that he has to replace a wheel beside the normal stuff.
Today he sent me the next pictures of the assembly of the movement and the final result.
Quintessence of a long post, go and buy a good 176.007 (blue or silver) as long they are cheap. You will get a fantastic vintage watch with a very good movement for not much $ compared to a new Omega👍.
A normal watch story of a watch geek😗.
In early 2020 I bought my first 176.007 and I was so tempted, that I thought it would be nice to have also the silver dial version of the 176.007.
In November I found an example on a local auction platform.
Here the original pics of the listing.
First I was really unsure if I should bid on it due to the lack of good pictures, no movement pic etc.
Description was “Family heirloom, non working condition but with papers”.
At the end I thought many others will be also very critical and they will not bid on it or very low. So I set a price limit and won the auction
.Here what I got 🙄
A hugh scratched crystal (fortunately not the case except one scratch on the lower right corner)
A lot wrist cheese on the case and on a unusual 1162 with 604 endlinks🤮
As I opened the watch I had the half gasket on my hands and saw it’s a double reference.
The movement was dirty and obviously complete dry so I haven't thought on a quick fix at this evening.
I polished the crystal, removed the seal and cleaned the bracelet.
I was really happy with the result and the watch.
A very nice first owner 176.001/176.007 with early hands, probably produced in 1972, with last service for $100 in Nov. 1981 and original papers🥰.
Found a nice original handset to replace the old and grimy hands.
Everything went to my watchmaker and after a few weeks I got the first pictures☕. As expected everything was very dirty and dry. He mentioned only that he has to replace a wheel beside the normal stuff.
Today he sent me the next pictures of the assembly of the movement and the final result.
Quintessence of a long post, go and buy a good 176.007 (blue or silver) as long they are cheap. You will get a fantastic vintage watch with a very good movement for not much $ compared to a new Omega👍.
- Posts
- 1,703
- Likes
- 5,179
Screwbacks
·congrats.😉👍
- Posts
- 40
- Likes
- 72
Searching
·Nice whatch and good choice, have the same with blue tropical deal from my Dad. Great work from the watchmaker!
- Posts
- 368
- Likes
- 253
- Posts
- 423
- Likes
- 1,807
Adri
·Thank you guys @Screwbacks @vlaspri @Searching
Absolutely and this always. I trust him 100% and the cherry on top I get for all Omega watches two years service warranty👍
Nice whatch and good choice, have the same with blue tropical deal from my Dad. Great work from the watchmaker!
Absolutely and this always. I trust him 100% and the cherry on top I get for all Omega watches two years service warranty👍
- Posts
- 22
- Likes
- 147
benaja
·
- Posts
- 418
- Likes
- 963
JetLinks
·@Adri She looks great after a good clean and some love from a specialist!
You're lucky that it came with the correct bracelet as I picked up a similar well used version of this Seamaster (blue racing dial) but it was just the head. Lucky for me @Uncle Seiko brought our a fantastic replica at the exact same time!
Come to think of it, I shoul get some pics into this thread too.......
You're lucky that it came with the correct bracelet as I picked up a similar well used version of this Seamaster (blue racing dial) but it was just the head. Lucky for me @Uncle Seiko brought our a fantastic replica at the exact same time!
Come to think of it, I shoul get some pics into this thread too.......
- Posts
- 11
- Likes
- 28
Frank-san
·So great pictures. I bought after many years another 176.007 in silver dial. Terrible condition, 40 years on wrist of a construction worker.
Found a great Tritium Dial online, got the case made and in 2-3 weeks it will go to Biel for full service.
Yohooo.
Found a great Tritium Dial online, got the case made and in 2-3 weeks it will go to Biel for full service.
Yohooo.
- Posts
- 622
- Likes
- 996
Lucasssssss
·Another solid gold example? https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/...0056/lot-110547d7-f842-4bac-85a0-adbc009d99c6
Auction Description
Wristwatch: Omega rarity, one of the rarest Seamaster chronographs, Ref.176.007 in solid 18K gold, never gone into series production, made in 1972!: Ca. 38 × 42mm, 18K gold, screwed Seamaster back, Ref. 176.007, automatic movement calibre 1040, movement number 34683620, gold dial with prominent indexes, date, original hands, black leather strap with omega buckle, probably original omega label tag, in very good condition, slightly worn, cleaning recommended, last revision date unknown. The 176.007 never went into production in solid 18K gold. Until a few years ago, only one example was known, and that was the presentation watch to Albert Piguet on the occasion of his achievements for Lemania, which is now in the Omega Museum. In the meantime, it is known that there were at least 2 others in gold, which were exclusively presentation watches for special customers and never officially went on sale! Provenance: 162nd auction, sold at that time for 11,700€.
Armbanduhr: Omega-Rarität, einer der seltensten Seamaster Chronographen, Ref. 176.007 in massiv 18K Gold, nie in Serie gegangen, Baujahr 1972!: Ca. 38 × 42mm, 18K Gold, verschraubter Seamaster-Boden, Ref. 176.007, Automatikwerk Kaliber 1040, Werksnummer 34683620, goldfarbenes Zifferblatt mit markanten Indexen, Datum, originale Zeiger, schwarzes Lederarmband mit Omega Dornschließe, vermutlich originaler Omega Labelanhänger, sehr guter Erhaltungszustand, wenig getragen, Reinigung empfohlen, da letzter Revisionstermin unbekannt. Die 176.007 ist in massiv 18K Gold nie in Serie gegangen. Bis vor wenigen Jahren war lediglich ein Exemplar bekannt, und zwar die Präsentuhr an Albert Piguet anläßlich seiner Leistungen für Lemania, die sich heute im Omega Museum befindet. Inzwischen ist bekannt, dass es neben dieser Uhr mindestens 2 weitere in Gold gegeben hat, die aber ausschließlich Präsentuhren für besondere Kunden waren und niemals offiziell in den Handel kamen! Provenienz: 162. Auktion, damals verkauft für 11.700€.
Auction Description
Wristwatch: Omega rarity, one of the rarest Seamaster chronographs, Ref.176.007 in solid 18K gold, never gone into series production, made in 1972!: Ca. 38 × 42mm, 18K gold, screwed Seamaster back, Ref. 176.007, automatic movement calibre 1040, movement number 34683620, gold dial with prominent indexes, date, original hands, black leather strap with omega buckle, probably original omega label tag, in very good condition, slightly worn, cleaning recommended, last revision date unknown. The 176.007 never went into production in solid 18K gold. Until a few years ago, only one example was known, and that was the presentation watch to Albert Piguet on the occasion of his achievements for Lemania, which is now in the Omega Museum. In the meantime, it is known that there were at least 2 others in gold, which were exclusively presentation watches for special customers and never officially went on sale! Provenance: 162nd auction, sold at that time for 11,700€.
Armbanduhr: Omega-Rarität, einer der seltensten Seamaster Chronographen, Ref. 176.007 in massiv 18K Gold, nie in Serie gegangen, Baujahr 1972!: Ca. 38 × 42mm, 18K Gold, verschraubter Seamaster-Boden, Ref. 176.007, Automatikwerk Kaliber 1040, Werksnummer 34683620, goldfarbenes Zifferblatt mit markanten Indexen, Datum, originale Zeiger, schwarzes Lederarmband mit Omega Dornschließe, vermutlich originaler Omega Labelanhänger, sehr guter Erhaltungszustand, wenig getragen, Reinigung empfohlen, da letzter Revisionstermin unbekannt. Die 176.007 ist in massiv 18K Gold nie in Serie gegangen. Bis vor wenigen Jahren war lediglich ein Exemplar bekannt, und zwar die Präsentuhr an Albert Piguet anläßlich seiner Leistungen für Lemania, die sich heute im Omega Museum befindet. Inzwischen ist bekannt, dass es neben dieser Uhr mindestens 2 weitere in Gold gegeben hat, die aber ausschließlich Präsentuhren für besondere Kunden waren und niemals offiziell in den Handel kamen! Provenienz: 162. Auktion, damals verkauft für 11.700€.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·Another solid gold example?
Interesting, thank you for posting!
- Posts
- 4,653
- Likes
- 17,624
Omegafanman
·I never intended to own two 176.007 / 1040.... but it happens 😀
Both of these are getting some TLC / service work but one day if I do sell....... in this groups opinion which of these is the keeper and why?
Thanks @cvalue13 and team forum for all the great information on this thread. They are great watches.
.
Both of these are getting some TLC / service work but one day if I do sell....... in this groups opinion which of these is the keeper and why?
Thanks @cvalue13 and team forum for all the great information on this thread. They are great watches.
.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,988
cvalue13
·in this groups opinion which of these is the keeper and why?
for purely aesthetic preference reasons, my vote is the silver dial is the keeper
- Posts
- 891
- Likes
- 1,656
tapaptpat
·@Omegafanman
Based on current state the silver dial
Based on @Adri showcase of what is possible then the blue dial
Based on me being cheeky the gold one
Congrats on the soon to be tryptic
🍿
Based on current state the silver dial
Based on @Adri showcase of what is possible then the blue dial
Based on me being cheeky the gold one
Congrats on the soon to be tryptic
🍿
- Posts
- 26
- Likes
- 51
Kyle1223
·I never intended to own two 176.007 / 1040.... but it happens 😀
Both of these are getting some TLC / service work but one day if I do sell....... in this groups opinion which of these is the keeper and why?
Thanks @cvalue13 and team forum for all the great information on this thread. They are great watches.
.
- Posts
- 4,653
- Likes
- 17,624
Omegafanman
·Thanks everyone .... I will post again when they are back from service and repair. My plan was to keep the silver dial and since buying it I found out John Cleese wore one in Fawlty Towers... so it will always be a ‘Fawlty’ watch ;0)
The blue dial was bought in part just for the 653 end links.
A few people (including here and the watchmaker) prefer the blue dial and seeing them in the flesh it is a striking watch - hence my post. I will probably end up with both of them..... not sure about a third but the gold ones are very nice
The blue dial was bought in part just for the 653 end links.
A few people (including here and the watchmaker) prefer the blue dial and seeing them in the flesh it is a striking watch - hence my post. I will probably end up with both of them..... not sure about a third but the gold ones are very nice
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,703
- Likes
- 5,179
Screwbacks
·just sharing again my OSA blue dial (all original)
Edited:
- Posts
- 4,653
- Likes
- 17,624
Omegafanman
·I never intended to own two 176.007 / 1040.... but it happens 😀
Both of these are getting some TLC / service work but one day if I do sell....... in this groups opinion which of these is the keeper and why?
Thanks @cvalue13 and team forum for all the great information on this thread. They are great watches.
.
So the project is complete (from 2020 mainly due to the bracelet and endlink hunt). The silver dial had never been serviced (48 years) and the dark blue had some water damage. The Dark Blue was due to be a donor watch but now I am glad both are saved. Kieren and the Omega approved Swiss Time team in the UK did a grand job for me. For daily wear I plan to use an after market bracelet and for now I suspect the silver dial (John Cleese ) will get more wrist time. I am very pleased to have the 176.007 at last. @0uss has a lot to answer for making me like these - he was the enabler :0)
.
Edited:
