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

EAO101

This is gold.

I have what appears to be an untouched -69 with a 27.7M movement. Can't wait for the extract form archives to open

EAO101

EAO101

sent me down a rabbit hole, though.

DrDan

Hello everyone,


this is my first post on Omega Forums, and I could hardly have hoped for a more exciting reason to make it.


I first became interested in (@Aludic) 145.022-74 simply because I found the watch fascinating. Only after he directed me to this thread and the earlier discussions linked in his opening post did I fully understand how unusual and potentially historically significant its configuration may be: a calibre 861 movement in the 27.328.xxx range, a 145.022-74 ST caseback, a domed non-step dial, and original Japanese papers documenting a sale in September 1975.


A few days later, I unexpectedly came across another 145.022-74 offered by the Japanese dealer aonohappa. I initially found the watch on Chrono24 and subsequently purchased it directly from the dealer.


Unlike @Aludic ‘a beautifully documented example, my watch unfortunately comes without box or original papers, and its service history is unknown. The dealer photographs nevertheless show the following highly unusual combination:

• calibre 861 movement in the 27.328.xxx range
• early metal chronograph brake
• 145.022-74 ST caseback
• domed non-step dial
• 1116 bracelet with 575 endlinks

After completing the purchase, I asked the dealer for a clear high-resolution photograph of the movement. This confirmed that the movement is indeed in the 27.328.xxx range.


This is where the story becomes rather extraordinary.


@Aludic and I subsequently compared the complete movement numbers privately. Without publishing either full serial number, I can confirm that the two movements are directly consecutive.


The watches therefore do not merely fall within the same million, ten-thousand or thousand-number range. Their movement numbers are adjacent.


Both watches also share the same remarkably unusual underlying configuration, and both have surfaced in Japan. @Aludic ‘S watch remains the crucial documented example because its original papers confirm a Japanese sale in September 1975. Mine has no original documentation, so the fact that it was found at a Japanese dealer does not by itself establish its original delivery market.


I also appreciate that a bracelet cannot reliably date a watch head on its own. Nevertheless, the fact that both watches are fitted with an 1116/575 combination is another interesting repeated characteristic.


It was already clear to me from the dealer photographs before purchasing the watch that the central chronograph seconds hand is a later service replacement. After I shared the photographs with @Aludic, he also pointed out that the subdial hands appear to have been repainted, with the paint looking particularly flat around their centres.


Neither point was decisive for me when buying the watch. I was not purchasing it as a completely untouched, collector-grade example. The hands are components that can be addressed later if desired. What mattered to me was the exceptional underlying configuration: the very early movement, the 145.022-74 ST caseback, the correct non-step dial and, above all, the possibility that this watch might represent another surviving example of the same highly unusual historical phenomenon documented by @Aludic


The photographs below are the dealer’s very brightly lit studio images. This type of lighting tends to wash out surface tones and can make both the dial and the tritium appear paler and cooler than they do under natural light. The lume may therefore prove noticeably warmer once the watch is in hand. I will add more representative natural-light photographs after it arrives.


This discovery does not yet prove exactly how Omega handled these early movements, how long they remained in stock, or how large the relevant group may have been. It also does not mean that every 27-million movement found in a 145.022-74 must automatically be original to that watch.


However, two directly consecutive movements appearing in the same exceptionally unusual 145.022-74 configuration constitute a substantially stronger data point than a single isolated example. In my view, this materially strengthens the hypothesis that a group of early calibre 861 movements remained in stock and was later fitted to 145.022-74 watches.


The next step must be to identify further examples and determine whether this consecutive pair is isolated or forms part of a wider serial-number corridor.


If anyone owns, has photographed, or has records of another 145.022-74 in the 27.328.xxx range—or of another well-supported 27.3-million example—I would be extremely grateful if you could contribute the available information. Even a partially obscured serial number, together with photographs of the movement, dial and inside caseback, could help define the pattern.


Once the watch arrives, I will document it thoroughly and add further observations and photographs to this thread.


Many thanks to @Aludic for sharing his research, documentation and complete movement number with me privately. Without his original thread, I would not have understood the significance of this watch when I encountered it.

padders

Welcome Dan, that is a long first so apologies if I have missed you mentioning it but can I draw your attention to the long S in Speedmaster on your dial. That is a feature not seen until the -78 model. What do you think about that? I am persuaded that some -71 and -74 models ended up with seemingly earlier movement serials, but your dial quirk is not something I can easily accept as original on a model with either a 27m serial or -74 caseback.