A sad day for my “birth year” Speedy.

Archer · Oct 2, 2019

I have to say I have less faith in the extracts now than I have had in a while. The fact that they make you send photos is something that strikes me as being very odd. If this truly is an extract of the archives (by definition their own records) then why are photos of the watch required?

wouter van wijk
They also had a 2998-1 that Omega could not verify a couple of years ago (I know about the missing files for some range of movement numbers etc) and now they all of the sudden could verify it.

This sort of example makes me really wonder if these are truly based on archive extracts. Are they simply using the photos? If so, it opens things up to all kinds of fraud.

wouter van wijk · Oct 2, 2019

Archer
This sort of example makes me really wonder if these are truly based on archive extracts. Are they simply using the photos? If so, it opens things up to all kinds of fraud.

They had really specific documentation from the original owners stating when and where the watch was sold. On top of that they had to send all the pictures of front, movement, parts and caseback. But still I think it is interesting that somehow Omega could not do it at one time and now they can.

Archer · Oct 2, 2019

wouter van wijk
They had really specific documentation from the original owners stating when and where the watch was sold. On top of that they had to send all the pictures of front, movement, parts and caseback. But still I think it is interesting that somehow Omega could not do it at one time and now they can.

Exactly, it's "interesting" that they couldn't do this in the past, but now they can. A prime example of the very problem I'm referring to. I know there are plenty of people (dealers I suspect) who are elated with this change, but from a pure collector point of view (not that of a seller) it makes the whole process less legitimate in my opinion.

So again, to me this example is not an extract of Omega's archives. It may be fully legitimate, or it may not be, but it's something other than an extract from Omega's archives. If they allow customer supplied documentation, then for me this means the extracts have to be viewed with some level of skepticism.

Cheers, Al

wouter van wijk · Oct 2, 2019

IMHO its a bit of a down grade. The whole document looks cheap compared to the former version. Thereby as stated earlier in other threads the whole statement on the extract says what it actually has been. It's just some fact checking. But its not a confirmation on originality of all parts. With current values of 321s there is much butchering going one as well as rebirths and even fake parts. Wouldn't surprise me that Omega will start selling a certified vintage collection with some vintage Omega dealers with a very good reputation in the nearby future (I know they ve done it with Somlo on a certain kind of way)

gefmey · Oct 2, 2019

wouter van wijk
IMHO its a bit of a down grade. The whole document looks cheap compared to the former version. Thereby as stated earlier in other threads the whole statement on the extract says what it actually has been. It's just some fact checking. But its not a confirmation on originality of all parts. With current values of 321s there is much butchering going one as well as rebirths and even fake parts. Wouldn't surprise me that Omega will start selling a certified vintage collection with some vintage Omega dealers with a very good reputation in the nearby future (I know they ve done it with Somlo on a certain kind of way)

Omega has not yet reached the point of certifying a watch, although both Longines and Patek will do that. This requires sending the watch back to them for a complete examination, and as expected is NOT cheap.

JetLinks · Nov 4, 2019

Well I just got notification from my local Omega Boutique that they could not find the extract for my Dad's amazing red racing watch. I know he bought it in 1970 and it says on the inside case that it's a "67" but the fact it's one of only maybe 20-30 "SP" watches ever made makes me want to go kick someone in the b*lls for not looking a bit harder!!

Yes, there was a fire but a watch only 3 digits away away (that sold for £72,000!) had their record so am I just being given the cold shoulder by the Boutique (or even Biel themselves)????

Fatcat · Nov 4, 2019

Got exactly the same last year , got a ST 68 from the first 500 batch ( hoping October to December) they land in January 69 , the result was SOLD IT.

Fatcat · Nov 4, 2019

Hi Padders yes , was a 145.022 , the information comes from the museum when I asked the extract of the archives , but the first 145.022 serial number is documented and mine was 498 over that serial .

Paul

padders · Nov 4, 2019

Fatcat
Hi Padders yes , was a 145.022 , the information comes from the museum when I asked the extract of the archives , but the first 145.022 serial number is documented and mine was 498 over that serial .

Paul

I binned my post as I realised you were taking about the Transitional rather than the last 321 model. No need to be coy, you’ve sold the watch now so you can show at least part of the number without too much risk. What were you looking for when you bought it? You date is maybe earlier than expected for an 861 by a few months but early transitionals are seen mid-late 1969 onwards, so not sure why you were disappointed if you were looking for a ‘69 watch. If you were looking for late 1968 you were looking at the wrong Speedy as they were all 321s at that point.

Fatcat · Nov 4, 2019

Nothing to Hide here 😀)))

was planning to do the twins 145.012 and 145.022 from 1968 at the end i resign

padders · Nov 4, 2019

Ahh I see. Based on Eugene’s earlier post and anecdotal evidence I would suggest a more achievable date for that pairing would be 1969, but it is tricky which ever way you try it!

wouter van wijk · Nov 4, 2019

JetLinks
Well I just got notification from my local Omega Boutique that they could not find the extract for my Dad's amazing red racing watch. I know he bought it in 1970 and it says on the inside case that it's a "67" but the fact it's one of only maybe 20-30 "SP" watches ever made makes me want to go kick someone in the b*lls for not looking a bit harder!!

Yes, there was a fire but a watch only 3 digits away away (that sold for £72,000!) had their record so am I just being given the cold shoulder by the Boutique (or even Biel themselves)????

Ask them again. One of my clients has been requesting 8 different EOA recently. Not all went easy. They made some minor mistakes too. So politely ask again

Davidt · Nov 4, 2019

Fatcat
Hi Padders yes , was a 145.022 , the information comes from the museum when I asked the extract of the archives , but the first 145.022 serial number is documented and mine was 498 over that serial .

Paul

Where have you seen the serial no for the earliest 145.022?

Mine is 26,555xxx and I’ve wondered how close it was to the earliest ones.

siguzzi · Nov 4, 2019

I have the whole bithyear speedy search behind me. I searched about five years ago for a speedy from 1969. I checked sellings for pictures with EoA data. I found a transitional with 26556xxx dated to 20.01.1969. The search was not easy and took some time. Finally I bought a Transitional with higher number 26558xxx. I didn't asked for a EoA and I am glad with the watch.
What I often saw that Transitionals with a 27xxx had bad tritium markers. Often very dark and unattractive.

Claven2 · Nov 4, 2019

It's a luxury good. If you want different, flip it and get the watch you want. It's just money.

Romega · Nov 5, 2019

Your question was if you should keep the watch and get over it - or not.
I'd say: wear the watch, enjoy it and - at the same time, look out for the perfect one..

(You can do this with watches, not with girlfriends)

DonovanMartin · Nov 5, 2019

I have a July 1969 extract with serial 27,7xx,xxx.

padders · Nov 6, 2019

DonovanMartin
I have a July 1969 extract with serial 27,7xx,xxx.

On which version exactly?

joe band · Nov 6, 2019

that watch is what it is, cool. wear it with pride.

NobodySpecial · Nov 6, 2019

I do understand the birthdate issue. I'm saving up for a birth year speedy as a graduation present to me self next year. Your's is beautiful so personally I'd keep it, but if it's not exactly what you want, then you have an excuse to get another!

A sad day for my “birth year” Speedy.

Archer

wouter van wijk

Archer

wouter van wijk

gefmey

JetLinks

Fatcat

Fatcat

padders

Fatcat

padders

wouter van wijk

Davidt

siguzzi

Claven2

Romega

DonovanMartin

padders

joe band

NobodySpecial

Similar threads

Birth year Speedy deal

A sad day for Britain

Speedmaster, the hunt for my birth year watch (1985)

Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch from my birth year - advice

Just started looking for my birth year watch and would like your opinion on this.

My Birth Year Omega Seamaster