1969 to 1971 saw quite a few changes in the Speedmaster. This is an unusual example of a 145.022 69 with straight text moon writing, and delrin brake.

Straight texts ranged from SN 31,000,xxx to 32,857,xxx, with 145.022-69 cases(MWO)
Delrin movements started in 1971 with movement number 32,849,xxx (MWO)
Thus, there are about 8,000 movements with delrin breaks that could have made it into 145.022-69 cases

This watch, with movement number 32,856,909, is at the crossroads of the last of the first type moon backs, and the first of the delrin movements.

My best guess is an early 1971 movement, in a late 1969 case, service bezel, original stepped dial w/matching lum hands, and correct crown.

Thoughts on the analysis?

Data from MWO, and photos of the watch below.

 

Nice analysis but I think we should refraim from copying multiple pages of copyrighted material that belongs to authors who are also members of this forum.

 

Hmmm, fair point. MWO is an awesome book that every serious watch collector should have. I will remove 3 and keep 2 of the most relevant pages.

 

Don't the serial nos refer to all omega movements, not just 321's/861's.

Therefore, it's a lot less than 8000 Speedmasters with this configuration as constellations, seamasters etc also have to be taken into account.

 

Astute observation David, there probably were not too many of these. I thought this was a franken, till i dug into MWO.

Anyone else have one or seen others?

 

The bezel appears to be a service replacement - it should be the tall text version shown in MWO. The minute hand seems to have aged more than the hour hand, so I'd question whether the hour hand is a replacement, but otherwise the dial looks in really great shape, and the lume matches the other hands. This is in the observed range of movement numbers (just) so I don't see an issue there.

It probably is, as you say, a 69 model case with a '71 movement, and this combination was observed to sell as late as 1973 (based on the full set which provided the upper movement number in the range in MWO which has been shown on here before)!

Here's mine - about 600k earlier than yours, with a metal brake:

 

really? I mean, I do understand the concept of copyright and the legalities associated with it, but com'on - do you think the use of these photos in this thread was done with the intention to gain anything or cause harm? The OP clearly made reference of MWO in every instance...gee! give me a freaking break - do you realize how many images we show around here from other sources? I'm not a lawyer either but I suspect intent has everything to do with copyright violations. By the way, assuming the picture in your avatar is from a Life magazine, did you ask for their permission?

 

Maybe he is mistaken with other watch forum ........

 

Agreed. In fact, a few sample pages like that are more likely to sell some extra copies of MWO rather than do the authors any harm . . .

 

Fair points to be sure. However I think his intent was clearly to gain something in his sales thread, where he also posts photos of pages from the book as proof of the originality of his watch...

https://omegaforums.net/threads/speedmaster-145-022-69-telemeter-bezel-browning-dial.23166/

I have nothing against the OP, and the fact he references the book, and that it might help sales of the book is quite true. But I also see it as a potential slippery slope. I think if posted for research purposes, it would be more acceptable than if used to sell your watch.

My impression is that many more photos of the book were posted prior to the comment made by Gemini4, so what you are seeing now is not a reflection of what his comment was based on.

I think if the authors of the book were to comment on it's use here - how they would find it acceptable - then it would help us all understand if we are doing the right thing. I know the feeling is with some that all information on everything should be available for free on the internet, but I think reasonable protections (and simple respect) for the people who generate such content is a good thing also.

I have had photos I have taken and marked with © Archer Watches 20XX taken and used in a horological publication (after the © Archer Watches 20XX was cropped away) without my permission, and I was not pleased to say the least. Personally I would err on the side of not showing something unless I had permission from the authors.

Cheers, Al

 

The fallout from my comment seems to be mushrooming beyond my intent.

The OP originally posted 5 pages, which I believe comprised the entire chapter of the 145.022-69 in MWO. My feeling was that was too much. The OP agreed and reduced the post to 2 pages.

We all agree that MWO is a wonderful resource.

 

i think raising the point was fair, and it's a topic worth discussing. Obviously, speed4ever is the only opinion that really matters, but at least this thread should prove useful in settling the point.

Edit: and to alfanator, that's some good sleuthing! It amazes me how deep some here on this forum can, and will, dig!

 

I have a different opinion. I think his intent was to provide a valid reference to the legitimacy of his watch. Nothing wrong, illegal or immoral about that.

I did see the original post and photos.

So what? What makes displaying 2 pages vs 5 pages right or wrong?

Interesting enough, I just received an article to be published in Horological Times that summarizes the latest from the court battle between Omega and Costco. The articles references the First Sale Doctrine - see brief excerpt in the picture below. Again, I don't see anything wrong with regards of how these pages of MWO were displayed/used here for anyone to throw the "copyright violation" flag.

This reminds me to check with Darren on were my name stands on the waiting list!!!



.

 

Which in my view is a "gain" per your original post in this thread. For me, using someone else's work (without their permission) to help sell your item is not on. You appear to see things differently.

Cheers, Al

 

Wow, this thread went sideways. Happy to take down any offending pics of MWO. I will leave that up to the mods (edit: and the author) to decide where the line is so we could apply it consistently. I have absolutely no intention of stealing anyone's IP.

Now, back to regular programming, this is a rather interesting watch, and thanks to MWO, I was able to indulge in its uniqueness.

 

I think Greg will clarify things soon... as soon as he will have recover from his Basel trip ...(maybe in few month )

 

Hello,

thank you Fost for the reminder.

I think everything is a matter of logic and usefulness.

In your case, you already write the s/n range of the model and of the delrin brake and cite MWO as a source, then I do not see what a picture of the text can bring more. In the contrary if you want to compare visual information (i.e. your dial with one of the book), then it would make more sense to show a picture.

 

Images removed from post.

Thanks for writing an awesome book.

 

Thanks to you