It is in fact confusing and as Spacefruit also stated, it must be a -68. And yes, you never get the year but only the Reference. Unless I see a significant amount in this serial Range delivered in 1969, I believe that too. I don't know why Omega issued the Extract, it's contradictive to all that was published before and what is stated in MWO and their Web-Addition to the serial ranges.

 

I so much want to completely agree that its a -68 but just don’t know what to do about the bracelet reference on the extract. Why would they put that if it wasn’t on some documentation?

 

That is something you should ask them back.

 

Is there a way to get in touch with those who gather information for the Extract?

 

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/so-just-what-makes-speedy-%91transitional%92-310917-5.html

In this thread(#44) it shows an extract for a Transitional and it lists the same bracelet as 1171/633.
I've yet to hear from Omega as to why they put that in the extract. At least I'm not the only one, I guess.

 

Have a look at http://speedmaster101.com/blog/omega-extracts-things-to-watch-out-for/

It appears that prior 2010 Omega has put in information into extracts that have been provided by the customer. It might be the case in this situation. Some say that they only trust extracts that have been created after 2010.

Cheers

 

Omega will include information about the bracelet if it is known (as in documented in their archives).

 

Happy Birthday to our country and my watch. My watch is 49 years old today

 

I put the original hands back on and a “correct” dial for the -69 but not Transitional. I’ll post better pictures soon. My contact in an Omega boutique said Omega recorded bracelet information for those that were put on at the factory per his contact in Beinne when he asked about my Extract. I’m trying to get that in writing specifically for my watch which he asked them about.
My rational: Omega says my bracelet is the 1171/633. If that is correct then I’ve seen nowhere that a transitional had that bracelet hence the later dial. My watch would be worth more as a transitional of course but I can’t reconcile the bracelet with a transitional. After the moonwalk there are more examples of the -69. My GUESS is that I have an early one. I’ll never know for sure but I had to reason it out with that information. Now if Omega comes back and states my bracelet information is incorrect then I’ll shift to the standing and powerful argument for a Transitional.

 

Well its a good looking piece whatever it turns out to be, and your assessment above, based on what you know/suspect thus far, seems perfectly plausible to me. Wear and enjoy.

 

Another in the sunlight

 

I'm quite new to this so may be missing something but from all the reading I've done I get the impression that in the late sixties at Omega there was, as in many other places, a rather 'laid back' vibe. Does anyone claim to have evidence of 'hard lines' on the serial number list between ANY models / iterations? I don't think it's difficult to imagine the assembly of a very early, possible even the first , -69 being done with some degree of 'ceremony?', perhaps by the chief watchmaker who used a movement he'd been demonstrating/testing/tinkering with for a while?

If you had extracts for serials before and after this one and they all have production date(s) before 4th July 1969 it would add weight to this theory.

 

I don't think there was 'ceremony' in these transitions. I think it was a financial decision. These companies were methodical in their record keeping but a clear line would only be possible if they were to have kept each part for each model completely isolated and used only on a -68 or -69 and so on. But that is clearly not the case as documented in quite a few places on this forum. I don't think I implied my watch was first, only early. But in the threads over transitional Pre-moon watches there is a clear gap from late May of 69 through Mid August. There are 2 or 3 examples from those months that I've seen referenced and a few 'seem' unadulterated. Mine happens to have had a rougher life. A clear timeline doesn't seem possible, but an educated guess is. That is what I've sought to do. I do happen to have the 3rd Elgin Veritas, 23j Grade 214, ever made. The first two would have been given the lime light in a ceremony or given as gifts to important people in 1899. I can speak with more certainty to that!

 

Yes, this was my point exactly, perhaps I didn't express it so well. I was certainly being sarcastic with the 'first ' comment as I don't even think there is such a thing, as no one will ever know (or care) in what order particular serial numbers was assembled.

 

There is a chance I may have to sell my grail watch but after taking a few pictures of her I think I've changed my mind and will look at the moment for other solutions. Here are two images I took today that really grabbed me!

 

So I have no luck whatsoever. After taking these pictures and then putting it back on, the watch will run well only while laying face up. When I put it on my wrist it may run for a while but it inevitably stops. Dust? I did't pry, poke, or touch anything. No rough movement to it at all and I was extremely careful. I've taken apart pocket watches before, done some minor stuff on those, but I'll not be touching this thing.
Ideas on what I may have done?
I guess it is off to be cleaned. The Omega Warranty expired a short time ago anyway.