A sad day for my “birth year” Speedy.

Posts
247
Likes
1,084
This illogic escapes me. A 'sad day' for you.
I am sure you don't have a single hobby or interest that doesn't carry with it some idiosyncrasies. I mean, you're giving me your opinion on not only a wristwatch discussion forum, but a specific brand of wristwatch discussion forum. And you're going to judge my logic? Most people think we're all insane, so please come down off the horse.

And what's the difference between a birth year fetish and a DON bezel fetish or a 321 fetish? Those are things that make a certain Speedmaster "complete" no? Well, a 1968 production would make it complete for me.
Edited:
 
Posts
10,308
Likes
16,128
You have no idea when the parts were made incl case, dial and hands. They could be years old. I just don't get this birthyear fetish. You had a great watch in your eyes until you found out the Omega records state a later date, and now it is not desireable any longer. This illogic escapes me. A 'sad day' for you.

Well not really. The wide T dial was only in use on -67 and -68 model 321s. the case is clearly marked -67, so in fact the parts could only have been made in a pretty short window of late 1967 to early 1969. I don't think it was illogical at all. The most likely explanation is that the extract team just plain got it wrong.
 
Posts
319
Likes
556

This is a long read but worth it. It comes from an extract thread earlier in the forum. Take a deep breath then read.

Dear Mr Hannover,

We have indeed produced all movements of cal. 321 from 1940 until 1960 = total units: 40’800 - when “freezed”, then the movement number was already engraved on each movement plate.

Therefore, the movements were used as required until 1968 when the replacement calibre 861 was gradually introduced. In other words, we had delivered “old” cal. 321 watches at the same time of the “new” references having the new cal. 861. This explains why certain movement numbers were not in “ sequence”.

The only reason for a change of calibre was due to the fact that any repair of the cal. 321 was extremely time consuming - hence, the production of cal. 321 was stopped in 1960 and this calibre was used-up until the replacement cal. 861 was ready for manufacturing; a entire new concept of production had been made and the actual cal. 861 is much easier to repair, without having lost anything of its high chronograph quality.

The movement number cannot be delivered as a continuous sequence and might have been delivered without taking into consideration “when” they were produced. Basically, we never had a continuous numbering of the movements for cal. 321 - a “package” of numbers was then assigned to the production lane, without taking into consideration when they have been produced.

As a matter of policy, the indicated date is the date of shipment of the complete watch and not its production date.

Hope this is now clear for you !Have a nice day

John R. Diethelm
OMEGA MUSEUM - Vintage Information

OMEGA SA
RUE STAMPFLI 96
2500 BIENNE 4
SWITZERLAND
T. +41 (0)32 343 97 04
F. +41 (0)32 343 98 70

I got more curious and wanted to know, it the cases was then also produced over a longer periode, and if the year indication on their back could therefor by wrong. This appeared to be the case, judged from comparing actual watches with the belonging certificate I could receive from Omega.

The conclusion was, that the cases were not necessarily used in accordance with the year indicated on their back.

Once again mr. John R Diethelm was very helpful.

Dear Sir,

We have following information about the production of cases for the OMEGA - Speedmaster:

Thecasesfor the “Moon watch” have not always been produced at the same time as the watches were produced, therefore, you might find in 1968 cases having the ref. 145.012-68 if they have been supplied in the year 1968…otherwise you might find some “older” cases with the reference +145.012-66 ( -67) fitted with a movement having been produced later…
Therefore, the production year of the CASE is not always identical with the production year of the movement or even of the complete watch delivery time.


Best regards
John R. Diethelm
OMEGA MUSEUM - Vintage Information

I could also notice, comparing certificate and watch of a pre.pro reference 105.003 that this was not produced in 1965 as stamped on the case-back, and that it was actually not sold untill 1967, after the introduction of the Pro model
This lead to more questions, not about this reference, and once again the people at Omega were helpful and could tell med, that they had reference 105.003 in their archives as late as 1968.

I finish of with mr.Alain Monachons of Omega´s explaination about the specificproductiontime of reference 105.003

Dear Mr. Hannover,

We are happy to here that you are so interested in the 321 caliber and the “Speedmasters” which used it.

To answer your questions the -65 in the case back refers to the date of manufacture of the case and not the watch as a whole.It is often the case that a large series of cases are made and then used for several years after.

The production date of November 1967 for your watch is correct andwe have found examples of the 105.003 on the archives as late as March 1968.

We have also recently found another set of archives which allow us to tell exactly which dial was fitted to the watch upon delivery and it would appear that the 105.003 was never delivered with the word “Professional” printed on the dial. This was reserved for the .012 series of watches with re-enforced asymmetrical case.

Hopefully this information clears up your questions.

Best regards,
Alain Monachon
OMEGA MUSEUM - Vintage Information
OMEGA SA
RUE STAMPFLI 96
2500 BIENNE 4
SWITZERLAND
T. +41 (0)32 343 92 71
F. +41 (0)32 343 98 70
 
Posts
2,423
Likes
4,677
Well..the main question is: where was the date taken from.
1. From the production card of the watch? It bears two dates, you have the date when the movement went to stock at Omega and when the watch was really assembled. These cards have been photographing somewhen in the 80ies and are on microfiche.
2. From the delivery books? Real Books, fat, huge, pages where the reference, serial and a code for the destination where noted down..and...a delivery date, when the watch physically left Omega.

So..which date was given to you from the 3 possible? It might sometimes depend on the researcher which one you get. That's all fine, because all of these 3 dates are legit..unless someone needs the 1968 badly 😀
 
Posts
7,574
Likes
13,980
I am sure you don't have a single hobby or interest that doesn't carry with it some idiosyncrasies. I mean, you're giving me your opinion on not only a wristwatch discussion forum, but a specific brand of wristwatch discussion forum. And you're going to judge my logic? Most people think we're all insane, so please come down off the horse.

And what's the difference between a birth year fetish and a DON bezel fetish or a 321 fetish? Those are things that make a certain Speedmaster "complete" no? Well, a 1968 production would make it complete for me.
Not judging your logic, just questioning if it makes sense in reality. It's your watch, if it is now diminished as to its acceptability for your wrist that is certainly your prerogative. But reality is it is the exact same watch you had before your extract was received.
 
Posts
1,716
Likes
5,190
at least you are now a year and a half younger. enjoy the nice watch. 😉
 
Posts
3,133
Likes
5,561
I'm not particularly a Speedmaster fan but that is a lovely watch.

I can see two ways of looking at it. It can bother you that the completed watch went to retail in 1969. Or you can consider that the beating heart of the watch, the thing that began its life, was almost certainly made in 1968. If you'd been looking for a 1969 watch, you might even have been unhappy that the movement wasn't your birth year. It can be a no-win if you let it.

If it were me, I think I'd be initially disappointed that I'd regarded the whole thing as 1968 before finding that part of it is probably later. Then I'd come to terms with the fact that Omega didn't worry about matching part dates when they made their watches, reflect that this one started life in 1968, and continue to love it.
 
Posts
5,501
Likes
9,399
This is why I have not gone for a 'birth year Speedy' -- there really is no such thing. Movements were mass produced and stored for years before going into an assembled watch. Same for cases, etc. So a watch that was fully assembled in 1967 may contain parts that were already as old as 7 years. Which part of the watch should align with the birthyear? If I am '66, I'd rather have a -66 marked case than a watch that completed assembly in '66. Okay well, not really -- I'd be happy with a -63 that finished assembly in '66, but that has nothing to do with birth year -- I just like the -63s more.
 
Posts
1,318
Likes
6,014
I was engaged to find a Speedmaster for a friend's wife, for his 40th birthday. When we got a -78 watch, I suggested that she might want to get an extract to say it was produced in '78 but with a very real risk that it might be '79 or '80. WIsely, she decided not to - and as far as he's concerned, he's wearing a birth year watch and that's all he needs to know... 😉
 
Posts
2,710
Likes
17,410
I would definitely move it on. It just would not feel right at all knowing the year was wrong... To be honest I would want it with the same day in the year. Or you could keep and enjoy....
 
Posts
10,308
Likes
16,128
It can be done. As I said a few pages back, I have a 145.012-68 with an extracted date of Nov 1968. Shame I was born in 1972!
 
Posts
1,119
Likes
5,879
There is no doubt it’s a beautiful watch but if you bought it for a specific purpose and it does not fulfil that requirement then it will niggle you and eventually force a decision.
Keep the watch as it’s fantastic but keep looking for exactly what you want and trade a deal if you can, or buy it outright and then sell your current if you need to balance the books or don’t want what would be 2 of the same watch.
 
Posts
478
Likes
489
@rkny18 Any chance you're sad enough to give it to me? 😁

I was typing nearly exactly the same idea than in the post above: it is a very nice watch. Keep it for now, and if it really bothers you in the end hunt for a confirmed 68 and sell this one only after having found your grail 😉
 
Posts
319
Likes
556
@rkny18 Any chance you're sad enough to give it to me? 😁

I was typing nearly exactly the same idea than in the post above: it is a very nice watch. Keep it for now, and if it really bothers you in the end hunt for a confirmed 68 and sell this one only after having found your grail 😉
If this is really going to bother you then your best chance of snagging a 1968 speedy, if you have the time, inclination and money is to look only for a 145.022-68 reference. These were the first 861 mvt watches and have the best chance of 1968 production and sale.
 
Posts
23,470
Likes
52,171
First world problem. But I agree that the extract is odd. My 26553xxx has a November 1968 extract.
 
Posts
252
Likes
749
Being born in 1957, there was no chance whatsoever of me getting a birth year Speedmaster so in 2017 I settled for a Speedmaster ‘57 Co-Axial for my 60th birthday.


 
Posts
4,946
Likes
69,623
I would be over the moon with this one , bit disappointing it not exactly your birth year but it’s still one cool piece I would be proud to own. The extract date is exactly my younger brothers birthday who was born on this very day & the watch would have been a great 50th birthday gift for him , unfortunately my brother has no interest in watches . I was born in 67 , so this 2017 speedy fits in nicely as a reminder of my 50th .
Edited:
 
Posts
10,308
Likes
16,128
If this is really going to bother you then your best chance of snagging a 1968 speedy, if you have the time, inclination and money is to look only for a 145.022-68 reference. These were the first 861 mvt watches and have the best chance of 1968 production and sale.

Nope. None of those was delivered until mid 1969. All the 1968 production was still 321s AFAIK.

What's the earliest dated Transitional extract seen on here? I am thinking circa April/May 1969.

@eugeneandresson can you use your superpower to comment?
 
Posts
319
Likes
556
Nope. None of those was delivered until mid 1969. All the 1968 production was still 321s AFAIK.

What's the earliest dated Transitional extract seen on here? I am thinking circa April/May 1969.

@eugeneandresson can you use your superpower to comment?
I would like some of the more knowledgeable folks to comment on this which I posted earlier and comes from the Omega museum.

We have indeed produced all movements of cal. 321 from 1940 until 1960 = total units: 40’800 - when “freezed”, then the movement number was already engraved on each movement plate.

Therefore, the movements were used as required until 1968 when the replacement calibre 861 was gradually introduced. In other words, we had delivered “old” cal. 321 watches at the same time of the “new” references having the new cal. 861. This explains why certain movement numbers were not in “ sequence”.

The only reason for a change of calibre was due to the fact that any repair of the cal. 321 was extremely time consuming - hence, the production of cal. 321 was stopped in 1960 and this calibre was used-up until the replacement cal. 861 was ready for manufacturing; a entire new concept of production had been made and the actual cal. 861 is much easier to repair, without having lost anything of its high chronograph quality.
 
Posts
319
Likes
556
Nope. None of those was delivered until mid 1969. All the 1968 production was still 321s AFAIK.

What's the earliest dated Transitional extract seen on here? I am thinking circa April/May 1969.

@eugeneandresson can you use your superpower to comment?
There's a 145.022-68 on ebay right now with a copy of an extract showing delivery Feb. 69