27xxxxxx serial Speedmaster 145.022-74's might be original after all

Foo2rama

Bracelets cannot be used for dating as heads and bracelets shipped separately and the buyer could choose from the available bracelets at the dealer.


I have a hot take on these that not everyone likes.

These are un sold pre certified casebacks watches which sat unsold and Omega took them back and updated them or sent update kits to the regional importers and had them updated.

SpdMastr

Interesting theory; have you uncovered any supporting evidence over the years? It would have been a somewhat expensive proposition for Omega to replace dials and case backs on unsold stock to update those pieces to make them more sellable. I doubt the average consumer would notice (or even care about) the differences between stepped/domed dials or pre-moon/medallion case backs. I suppose it’s not out of the question, it just seems unlikely.

The more plausible explanation is that Omega purchased more 861 components post-moon landing than demand would require. Many of these components then sat around for years before assembly.

I’ve often wondered if any OF members are friendly with retired Omega employees who might be able to shed more light on mysteries such as this.

My recently acquired 74ST #3132XXXX:

Aludic

Possible, certainly possible. In this case that is not very straightforward though, as it would have meant an updated dial (from step to dome) too. Still, possible.

On second thought; I doubt this would really be the case. Because of the case. A 273xxxxx like mine would in the theory of previously shipped and unsold watches have been sitting in a 145.022-68 with a very specific caseband shape and DON. So, that would have meant a conversion of not just a caseback, but also dial and full case.

As much as I like the theory as an interesting hot take, the simplest explanation is usually the best. And the simplest IMHO would simply be an overstock of movements originating from approx '69. No surprise as demand forecasting must have been impossible at the time (as admittedly it currently still is!) given a spike resulting from the moon landing publicity and the upcoming quartz crisis.

Foo2rama

The DON point is interesting but the serials are more aligned with -71’s which would have had DNN’s but hippo casebacks.

Davidt

It doesn’t add any credence to the argument either way really but I have an early -68 transitional with a 26,555xxx serial which came with a straight landing caseback. I bought it in a really sorry state and it certainly hadn’t had any work for a couple of decades.
There’s only two possibilities really;
1. The casebacks were mixed up by a careless watchmaker at some point.
2. The dealer added a new caseback at the point of sale as people wanted a commemorative moon landing caseback rather than the plain pre-moon caseback.

I can’t know for certain but as the two backs are fairly different and the original owner was adamant it was the original caseback, I think option 2 is more likely in my case.

Foo2rama

The extracts show the later reference, so it was not swapped at the time of sale.

Davidt

I’m not sure i follow. Are you referring to your sample or my watch?
An extract just shows the year of manufacture and reference (145.022) which is correct for both a -68 and -71 or -74 and wouldn’t suggest one option is more or less likely for my watch.
I’m simply saying I think on occasion it’s possible dealers ‘upgraded’ pre-moon casebacks to ‘moon landing casebacks’.

Foo2rama

These are the early serials with extracts with later delivery. Not watches with early delivery on the extracts and later casebacks.

jds1971

I’m wondering if you are seeing some watches originally bought through the military post/base exchanges. I have one of the ‘74s with a 28,08xxx and another ‘74 with a 32,20xxx, both bought new by father at the Army post exchange at Ft. Rucker, AL in 1975. One was his and one was given to my grandfather. My father swears that neither watch have ever been sent in for service except his with the 32,20xxx serial number to have the hesalite crystal replaced because he cracked it. He said at the time, the base exchanges had a ton of these watches and were sold fairly cheaply at the time.

I’ve posted before, that it is known that some manufacturers will send specially produced items to military exchanges that are ‘different’ than the equivalent of the open retail market. Different meaning, specialized model numbers, slight material differences, etc..

Foo2rama

which sat unsold and Omega took them back and updated them

Aludic

As much as I appreciate how compelling a story it is to think that Omega would have swapped the case backs, there's a few things to consider here:

1. It's not just the caseback, but also the dial in most 145.022-74's is different from the earlier Speedmasters (no longer stepped, but domed)
2. The 273xxxxx serials that are found in the 145.022-71's exactly fit the established and documented range of the 145.022-68. I have personally seen no less than 8 (!) EoA's of 145.022-68's in that same range. If the theory of these older watches being recalled and converted to 145.022-74's holds, that would imply that not just the caseback and dial, but even the case and bezel would need to have been changed. Bear in mind that the 145.022-68 has a very distinct banana-shaped midcase and a DON bezel.
3. Additionally, let's assume that this conversion of 145.022-68's actually has happened, even the hands would likely have been changed. As the careful observer might have already noticed, several 145.022-74's have a very distinctive orange lume plot on the chrono seconds hand. Interestingly enough, none of the 145.022-68's I have ever seen, shared this characteristic. In short; all that would have been 'left' of a converted 145.022-68 into a 145.022-74, would have been the movement.

With all this in mind, I would happily accept that 'old' movements have been lingering around at Bienne, than that full watches like 145.022-68's have been 'converted' to 145.022-74. Without any proof of that conversion operation having happend, of which I have still seen nothing here nor elsewhere, it is unlikely to believe. A simple case of Occam's Razor, or the principle of parsimony, tells us that "the simplest, most elegant explanation is usually the one closest to the truth.”

Either way, we do now have proof of an early serial movement having been sold - and documented to have been so - in a 145.022-74 in 1975. How that watch and its sisters came together will likely remain a mystery.