Hi folks!
Within my daily eBay and co routine I stumbled upon this rather strange specimen.

Pics first:



As we can clearly see it's a 145.022-69

Step dial

Serial range puts it in early 145.022-69 territory

Rather nice DON bezel


First itteration of the 1171 bracelet, applied logo on clasp with vintage 633 endlinks (no cutout).

Paperwork sets the date of sale at 72.

As we know it's not uncommon for a watch to sit at a dealer unsold for some time, so a -69 being sold in 72 wouldn't put me off.

What I find rather strange is that it has the newer but vintage correct caseback seen in later models post straight writing.

Seller (first owner) claims that the watch is in "as bought" condition as sold in 72.

So what happened here with the caseback?
Did the original AD upgrade the caseback?
Was it put together like this from the factory (highly unlikely IMO).

Any suggestions?

I'm not really planning to purchase this one, just thought of it as an interesting toppic for public discussion.

Maybe @WurstEver can feed the serial number into his production date prediction model for more info (as the date stated in the papers is not really useful here).

Cheers,

Max

Ps: I have no skin in this sale, but if someone is interested I can forward the info.

 

G'day there! Happy to jump in if it helps to shed some light on things. So, this serial number (30992152) is quite close to known examples from late 1970 and early 1971. Using linear interpolation, my best guess would be that an extract would show a production date in January, 1971 for this watch. Hey, @eugeneandresson, @JMH76, what do you think?
This date is consistent with the sales documentation and most of the characteristics of the watch. Seems that a parsimonious explanation might be that the case back is not original? Pics of the inside of the case back could help to clear things up. Good luck

Edit: typo in predicted date

 

so do you think a serial 29639XXX would firmly place a Mark II production date as 1969 baed on this "linear interpolation"?. There seems to be so many inconsistencies around this time...

 

I had a -69 with a 28.42x serial produced in the first week of January 1970... I'd guess this one was probably produced in the later months of 1970, probably Q4.

By that time they were transitioning between the DON and DNN, but still using pre-moon casebacks. What I'd want to see is whether the caseback on this is a 145.022-71 which could indeed indicate an AD switch or a service part at the time.

 

You're right, there are lots of inconsistencies. However, interestingly, some of the inconsistency seems to arise from changes in the rate of production or ways of counting (eg., using more or less of the available numbers in a range), rather than from randomness per se. For example, in the current data set of 105 known serial number/production date pairs, all but about a dozen are in sequential order (ie., larger serial number = later production date). I find this to be surprisingly orderly. Nevertheless, I am still wary of the possibility that our sample is not representative and that we are in for some nasty shocks as more and more examples come to light ...
None of the new estimation methods will ever be 100% accurate, but they do appear to be performing well under certain conditions. Unfortunately, these analyses (described in this thread https://omegaforums.net/threads/speedy-production-dates-an-alternative-to-hartmanns-table.56856/) are limited to moonwatches for the moment. But there's no reason why they couldn't be applied to Mark IIs eventually, given sufficient data and some elbow grease

 

I contacted the seller, requesting pics of the inside of the caseback. Let's see if he responds!

Cheers,

Max

 

You should have called the quite old Gentleman for the whole story instead of asking him to open the watch. I did and it's a nice authentic Speedie deviating from what we think is the firm rule. More to come later!

 

It's a firm rule as I'm pretty sure that caseback had not been produced yet at the time of sale.

 

In August 1972? I'd say it was.

 

Oops read the sales slip wrong swore it said 70 lol

Bad foo!!!

 

..because you're a post harvester!

 

I just hadn't the time to call from the office so I engaged the conversation with him via mail. I asked him gently if he could open the back as I would be interested in the number stamped in the inside. I didn't just wrote "Hey open it up and send me pics!"
The conversation I had with the gentleman via Mail was a very gentle one, he seemed honest and upfront, stating he didn't want to open the back as he didn't posses the right tools to do so.
Which is absolutely fine with me.
I guess you bought it? As it's no longer available. Looking forward to see more pictures from you and congrats on the buy!

Cheers,

Max

 

My intention was not to let it sound as if you were rude to him, sorry!
I was in home office and had some time to arrange a call with him and yes, a honest and upfront guy, a nice story around this watch ( actually the two Speedies he bought that day in Luzern, both of them are on the receipt), we neogiated the price and I bought it. More to come

 

I'd go so far as to say the watch is right for a 145.022-69 made in 1971 but what's wrong is the bezel. It's earlier and freon pre-1969. Possibly a part replaced at service with (what was then) a NOS part the dealer had on the shelf.

Just a caveat ... i'm only reading this on my phone which means the smaller details aren't too visible to my aging eyes.

 

No offense taken . All is good, guess that's the Problem with written statements compared to a spoken conversation. Like having a fight with your Girlfriend/Wife over nothing on whatsapp because of a simple misinterpretation (think we all have been there haha) .

Looking forward for more of the story from your side!

Cheers,

Max

 

In these times you need to learn living with a DON where it should be a DNN

 

I'll be happy to swap the correct bezel for the one on that watch ... you know, as a favour. Just to make the piece right. It's like my civic duty.

 

Caseback has tall "W"s, short tail "Q" and small serifs. Looks like a 145.022-71 to me.

 

Checked that thoroughly and with MWO to be sure, yes, should be a '71. I think there are two possible reasons for the "wrong" caseback:

1. It left Omega this way if it was a quite late production '69. I don't know how likely that is, but a possible scenario.
2. The AD had this watch a while until it was sold in '72. He might "pimped" it then with a current series Caseback to sell a fully current watch.

I know that the owner gave it away to a watchmaker he knew once in his life, somewhen very early 80s, to have it checked and oiled. it was not send to Omega then or ever.

 

Are you sure that caseback didn't go on the late production 69's at the end of 1970. There were the acid etched, straight writing and curved all put on the 1970 watches ... or am I mistaken?