Forums Latest Members
  1. nvrp813 Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    35
    Likes
    30
    Hello All,

    Figured I'd point this out as its the first time I have seen this, however I'm sure the experts here have come across this from time to time.

    Recently acquired what I thought to be a 145.022-71 Speedmaster. Online pictures checked out and I proceeded with the purchase.

    Upon further inspection the movement is clearly labeled "1861" yet has the look of a cal. 861. Has anyone seen this before? Is it possible during a service they could have used an 1861 main plate (I believe that is where the caliber is written) or is this the dreaded Frankenwatch? The look and jewel count look correct, but I am no means an expert. Any input form the group is welcomed and appreciated.

    No 18th jewel
    [​IMG]

    1861 clearly written
    [​IMG]

    Correct serial# for the era
    [​IMG]

    Stepped dial looks correct
    [​IMG]

    Needless to say, this is going back to the seller.
     
  2. uwsearch Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    1,055
    Likes
    1,596
    Who's the seller ?
     
  3. nvrp813 Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    35
    Likes
    30
  4. jimmyd13 Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    3,147
    Likes
    7,133
    Here's my 1972 861, with Delrin brake for comparison. IMAG0457a.jpg
    I'm not as educated as most but I fear the worst for this one.
     
  5. nvrp813 Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    35
    Likes
    30
    Oh I have no doubt there's something shady here. A simple Google search of the serial number will confirm that suspicion. Did the seller know about this? Most likely as he conveniently did not have a picture of the full serial number and only disclosed the first 4 numbers.

    To get myself back on topic, I have personally never seen this before. I would think a true Frankenwatch would have other glaring errors. But, to my untrained eye, everything else checks out. Dial, bezel, hands, case.. I even seeked more expert opinions before completing the purchase and the watch passed the smell test.
     
  6. jimmyd13 Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    3,147
    Likes
    7,133
    I glanced at the listing earlier but just looked again in detail after you replied. At first, I was thinking that this was a watch taken in trade and moved on without much of an examination but the depth of field used in the photo of the movement is perfect to show the good and blur the "1861"; the description of the movement mentions things like the Delrin brake but we are to assume that he missed the stamp? I actually think this was a deliberate misrepresentation. Not at all good. :(
     
    72c likes this.
  7. 72c Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    173
    Likes
    199
    Even on the listing movement photo where the nameplate number isn't blurred, it's hard to decipher 1861 from the seller photos so I can see how this got the all clear from others.

    s-l1600.jpg
    I don't know anything about this seller, but I do use Photoshop a lot and to me it looks possible those mainplate digits have been digitally obscured.

    The curious thing is if it was a straightforward case of a later 1861 main plate used on an older 861 you would expect it to be rhodium plated like this one .
    IMG_3835.jpg

    You may well never know the full story of what actually went on with this watch, but if it's returnable and you're not happy with it, it's surely a straightforward case of return and continuing the hunt.
     
  8. omegasaso12 Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    410
    Likes
    1,408
  9. nvrp813 Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    35
    Likes
    30
    Yes, that is the same watch.

    Here it is again:
    http://www.watcheswithpatina.com/197374-omega-speedmaster-145022/

    How I even stumbled across this one is I was trying to verify the use of a CRS caseback in a 71 Speedmaster. Through my research I discovered that, what is thought to be a service back, has actually been used by Omega since 1971. Looking up the serial number the date of the "movement" (in quotes since there are obvious swapped parts) has a rough manufacture date of 1972. In line with using a CRS caseback.

    And again:
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Omega-Speed...ep-Dial-READ-DESCRIPTION-/191852561052?_ul=BOPurchases made through these links may earn this site a commission from the eBay Partner Network

    This link is what raised the red flag for me.
     
  10. jimmyd13 Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    3,147
    Likes
    7,133
    I keep watching this thread to see what the resident experts have to say but those earlier auctions seem to accurately described the piece, warts and all, that was obviously taken in trade by a dealer. I'm not clear as to whether or not the final seller is one in the same but I am wondering if this was bought as an accurately described frankenwatch with the intention of flipping it for profit as all original.

    What's the seller said about returning it?
     
  11. STANDY schizophrenic pizza orderer and watch collector Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    16,311
    Likes
    44,718
    32000000 in a 1971 seamaster chrono 861
    image.jpeg
     
  12. nvrp813 Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    35
    Likes
    30
    Funny enough the seller has been unresponsive for the past 48 hours. A claim has already been filed with eBay and I need to wait 1 more day before I can get them involved. Obviously the seller knew about this issue and chose to hide it. What bothers me most is looking through his feedback he has sold numerous Speedmaster's, most for a lot more than I paid for this one.
     
  13. WatchWarlock Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    307
    Likes
    227
    I've purchased a misrepresented franken last year. The seller was unresponsive. eBay was great with their buyer protection and while it was drawn out, I eventually got all my money back. Just be sure to leave that seller "proper" feedback!
     
  14. Davidt Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    10,309
    Likes
    17,882
    Are you sure CRS is ok for a 71 ref? I usually associate them with 80's Speedmasters.
     
  15. nvrp813 Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    35
    Likes
    30
    I don't have a copy, but I've been told MWO shows a classification for casebacks, and for 1971-84 it shows an HF caseback (interior and exterior), but also says that the interior engravings CRS are correct. Maybe someone who has the book can verify?
     
  16. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,053
    To put it mildly, I service a lot of Speedmasters, from all different eras. I have never seen, and AFAIK there never was, an 1861 base plate that was not Rhodium plated.

    The photos are not lit well and the colours seem off, so it's hard to judge. If you have the watch in hand, does the main plate look yellow when compared to the other plates? Just wondering if the plating may have been stripped from an 1861 base plate to make it look a little less obvious that it's a franken...

    Cheers, Al
     
  17. nvrp813 Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    35
    Likes
    30
    Yes it definitely looks yellow compared to the others. Sorry about the bad quality as I was trying to use my cellphone to get the images.

    This probably shows the contrast better.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Davidt Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    10,309
    Likes
    17,882
    Is the plate definitely 1861 and not 1863? Didn't they come in copper?
     
  19. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Oct 19, 2016

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,053
    To me it looks like an 1861 main plate that has been stripped back to bare brass...