A sad day for my “birth year” Speedy.

Posts
5,059
Likes
15,583
@eugeneandresson can you use your superpower to comment?

You mean my sleep-inducing flatulence? Haven't managed to hone the skill to form words yet (not for lack of trying)...

😁

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

Earliest extract for a 145.022 : 1968/12 (26555xxx...and only 1 in this year...everything else is 69+).
Latest extract for a 145.012 : 1969/7 (26554xxx ... and only 2 in this year... all 30+ others are in 67/68).
 
Posts
10,308
Likes
16,128
You mean my sleep-inducing flatulence? Haven't managed to hone the skill to form words yet (not for lack of trying)...

😁



Earliest extract for a 145.022 : 1968/12 (26555xxx...and only 1 in this year...everything else is 69+).
Latest extract for a 145.012 : 1969/7 (26554xxx ... and only 2 in this year... all 30+ others are in 67/68).
So either there was some genuine overlap and the 861s did indeed start in very late 1968, or perhaps based on earlier instances, these erratics are extract team errors.

Out of interest, what date is the second earliest 861 and second latest 321, if those are far off that may shed light on if they are dodgy dates, if close then probably right.
Edited:
 
Posts
319
Likes
556
So either there was some genuine overlap and the 861s did indeed start in very late 1968, or perhaps based on earlier instances, these erratics are extract team errors...

From the museum, information in the extracts

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
 
Posts
10,308
Likes
16,128
From the museum, information in the extracts

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
There has been considerable debate over this and informed and respected official sources have contradicted several of the points your quoted source has stated. It is by no means certain which date the extract team use or indeed if they are consistent. One auction house once claimed with a straight face it was the date of sale which somehow was reported back to the archive. You will forgive me for not taking your quotes as the full story. The archive process is full of uncertainty.
 
Posts
247
Likes
1,084
From the museum, information in the extracts

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

If this is the case, I’m not sure why they chose the wording “Production September 13, 1969” on my extract.
 
Posts
247
Likes
1,084
Latest extract for a 145.012 : 1969/7 (26554xxx ... and only 2 in this year... all 30+ others are in 67/68).

Forgive my noobness, but are you drawing these figures from some kind of database of extracts shared on this forum? Because if I decide to keep my watch I’d be happy to submit mine to the database and it would appear I could at least take the temporal prize for latest 145.012...1969/9.
 
Posts
319
Likes
556
My point in posting all of this was exactly to your last point. The archive process is full of uncertainty. There are almost no absolutes in anything. Omega is a watch company, and primarily concerned with selling new watches. It's wonderful that they have a vintage department, however institutional memory in corporations is fleeting. What may have been known with certainty years ago is now unknown. No disrespect meant for rkny 18 who was looking to get something with a meaningful date for him, but unfortunately trying to pin down a single date of production for a mass produced watch is bound to end in disappointment. I hope will enjoy the fact that he has a spectacular watch, maybe one of the last 321s sold, in fabulous condition that any one of us would jump at.
Edited:
 
Posts
10,308
Likes
16,128
Eugene = Ilovemyspeedmaster.com

He is a godsend to Speedmaster fans and a minor hero to many of us. Despite the flatulance!
 
Posts
2,808
Likes
8,339
Got this lovely specimen on July 16th this year, on the day of the anniversary of the Apollo 11 launch.

I spied it in a dealer’s case on 47th St in NYC. It passed muster condition/correctness wise with flying colors. But I was really looking for a birth year watch, 1968. So I quickly googled the serial range and there was hope it was a ‘68. The dealer thought it was a ‘67, but admitted he didn’t know much about vintage. He sold mostly new stuff.

So I bought it, increasingly hopeful and confident that it was a ‘68, bolstered by more anecdotal confirmation of the serial range in forums, and a search at ilovemyspeedmaster which gave me a 1968 result when I entered my serial.

Then I went to the OB here in Chicago and requested an archive extract. The system was a bit backed up and my schedule got busy so I didn’t get the result until yesterday.

I sat down at the boutique counter. Opening the envelope, nervously, my heart sank. Not 1968. Not 1967.

September 13, 1969. Delivered to the U.S.

1.5 years after my birthday, and after the Apollo launch.

I had spent the past 2 months wearing the watch every day, marveling at how it had been on the planet for every moment of my life, before we went to the moon, and telling anyone who would listen how excited I was to have a birth year Speedmaster, how I got it, yadda yadda.

Now the excitement is dashed. I still love the watch, but now it’s only because of the condition. It feels like finding out some weirdness about your girlfriend of 2 months, like she used to be in a cult or something. Maybe you’ll see how it goes and give her a shot, or maybe that gets you thinking that she’s probably not the one.

I guess one could argue that finding out the watch isn’t what I’d hoped it was is now part of its lore if I decide to keep it.

I’ve been tracking the price and availability of other 145.012-67s since buying this one and ones as nice as this are few and far between. And 1968 examples are even fewer.

What would YOU do? Wear it and get over it, or sell it and move on?

I’d wear it and get over it.
 
Posts
445
Likes
1,721
Forgive my noobness, but are you drawing these figures from some kind of database of extracts shared on this forum? Because if I decide to keep my watch I’d be happy to submit mine to the database and it would appear I could at least take the temporal prize for latest 145.012...1969/9.

The background is in these threads...

https://omegaforums.net/threads/speedy-production-dates-an-alternative-to-hartmanns-table.56856/

https://omegaforums.net/threads/speedmaster-production-dates-with-production-query-tool.59392/
 
Posts
319
Likes
556
1.5 years after my birthday. A year after the Apollo launch.
sept 13, 1969
To lighten the mood and come to the defense of rkny 18 in his use of language, his proper use of a comma "1.5 years after my birthday, and after the Apollo launch." separates the two thoughts. So 1.5 years after his birthday, and also after the launch, but not necessarily by the same 1.5 yrs.

As so aptly put in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" "Watch them grammar"😝
 
Posts
5,059
Likes
15,583
😟

I am reading through the correspondence I had with Pat (@ICONO ), and he had a similar issue.
Plugged his SN into the website, which said 'Nov 68'. Got an extract which said, 31 Oct '69.
His watch is 57 SN's away from Michael Collins's Apollo 11 watch (worn July '69 to the moon)...which has a production date of 30 Oct '68.
He called them and explained and they agreed, and issued a new extract : 1 day apart from the Collin's watch.
Gave no explanation, no need really. We are all humans, and make mistakes/typos etc.

If I'm in the middle of something and I get interrupted, I don't necessarily resume what i was doing where I got interrupted...and something can be left in a bad way...that I have to fix later. Doesn't make me a dubious professional. Doesn't mean I shouldn't get paid for working. Any ways. I hope this community service website hasn't added to the grey hairs of Omega Archives. They are a decent bunch of folks.


Indeed, and for the Lemania lovers (of which I am)::

https://omegaforums.net/threads/how...erial-numbers-and-any-lemania-movement.44685/

I use this table when looking at Lemania's ... and it works pretty well 👍
Edited:
 
Posts
7,635
Likes
21,906
Doesn’t matter what you do because any decision will be correct.
I hope that’s the saddest thing you’ll ever experience.
 
Posts
366
Likes
538
I agree with most OF members keep it, wear it and love it.
 
Posts
247
Likes
1,084
😟

I am reading through the correspondence I had with Pat (@ICONO ), and he had a similar issue.
Plugged his SN into the website, which said 'Nov 68'. Got an extract which said, 31 Oct '69.
His watch is 57 SN's away from Michael Collins's Apollo 11 watch (worn July '69 to the moon)...which has a production date of 30 Oct '68.
He called them and explained and they agreed, and issued a new extract : 1 day apart from the Collin's watch.
Gave no explanation, no need really. We are all humans, and make mistakes/typos etc.

If I'm in the middle of something and I get interrupted, I don't necessarily resume what i was doing where I got interrupted...and something can be left in a bad way...that I have to fix later. Doesn't make me a dubious professional. Doesn't mean I shouldn't get paid for working. Any ways. I hope this community service website hasn't added to the grey hairs of Omega Archives. They are a decent bunch of folks.



Indeed, and for the Lemania lovers (of which I am):

https://omegaforums.net/threads/how...erial-numbers-and-any-lemania-movement.44685/

I use this table when looking at Lemania's ... and it works pretty well 👍
I emailed Mr. Monachon, rather than calling. I appreciate all your input!
 
Posts
319
Likes
556
Doesn’t matter what you do because any decision will be correct.
I hope that’s the saddest thing you’ll ever experience.
For me it was a sad day when I realized I had sold a speedmaster "grail" watch, well before it was known as that. After all who wanted an automatic speedmaster?? ::facepalm1::
 
Posts
2,168
Likes
5,715
Maybe...... the Omega 321 was first wound and started 'ticking in' 1968???😕....... 😕 That's when it was... REALLY... 'born' 😟

That would mean you were both 'born' in 1968!😟

(Just trying to cheer you up mate!)😀

I was born in 1957... the chances of me affording a "birth year" Speedmaster are 'four fiths of fakk all'!🙁
Edited:
 
Posts
5,501
Likes
9,399
For me it was a sad day when I realized I had sold a speedmaster "grail" watch, well before it was known as that. After all who wanted an automatic speedmaster?? ::facepalm1::
It is only a 'grail' for a few. If you did not like it there is nothing to feel bad about other then a couple of years later you could have sold it for more $. But think of the favor you did for the buyer 😉
 
Posts
12,959
Likes
22,454
You mean my sleep-inducing flatulence? Haven't managed to hone the skill to form words yet (not for lack of trying)...

😁



Earliest extract for a 145.022 : 1968/12 (26555xxx...and only 1 in this year...everything else is 69+).
Latest extract for a 145.012 : 1969/7 (26554xxx ... and only 2 in this year... all 30+ others are in 67/68).

Hmm I've got a 145.022-68, serial 26,555xxx.

Might be time to get an extract for it.