- Posts
- 924
- Likes
- 1,778
dialstatic
·I think it looks gorgeous. It looks like it's had a life, like the case. As long as it's not cracked or otherwise compromised, I'd leave it alone.
Anyone own the Red Book? (176.007 question)
- Posts
- 228
- Likes
- 264
JackDaniels83
·That is more then unlikely. If you don't want to do it on your own. Take the watch to another shop and ask what they can do for you.
- Posts
- 924
- Likes
- 1,778
dialstatic
·Victory is mine! And it looks to have the period-correct narrow logo, too. Thanks for the help guys!
- Posts
- 924
- Likes
- 1,778
dialstatic
·...and it's finally mounted. Curvalicious!
- Posts
- 443
- Likes
- 819
BASE1000
·great! 👍👍
And what was the answer for the part number? The same as now a days? Does this seller have one more of this crystals? I am need as well
And what was the answer for the part number? The same as now a days? Does this seller have one more of this crystals? I am need as well
- Posts
- 46
- Likes
- 281
F.Antl
·I just stumbled upon that interesting thread and hope that I can contribute to it as well:
I am a happy owner of several examples of the 176.007 reference with both types of crystals, respectively. But what's maybe the most important insight I can deliver is that I truly believe the initial assumption of what is the (only) "original" (and what a "replacement" crystal; cf. the opening post) is not fully correct. And here's the reason for my claim: One of my 007s came as a never worn, never sold NOS example to me (it still had the protective wax cover on the caseback), together with an Omega extract from the archives, dating it back to January 1975. And this example has (and had ever since from its very beginning) the following crystal mounted.
For a comparison, that's the modern replacement's shape:
My original is clearly different from the modern one (which I also have) AND it's definitely different from the flat-on-top Moonwatch-like called "original" here. And, yes, mine shows the narrow Omega logo as well:
Hope that sheds some additional light on that crystal issue - or does it raise just further questions ;-) ?
Kind regards,
F.Antl
I am a happy owner of several examples of the 176.007 reference with both types of crystals, respectively. But what's maybe the most important insight I can deliver is that I truly believe the initial assumption of what is the (only) "original" (and what a "replacement" crystal; cf. the opening post) is not fully correct. And here's the reason for my claim: One of my 007s came as a never worn, never sold NOS example to me (it still had the protective wax cover on the caseback), together with an Omega extract from the archives, dating it back to January 1975. And this example has (and had ever since from its very beginning) the following crystal mounted.
For a comparison, that's the modern replacement's shape:
My original is clearly different from the modern one (which I also have) AND it's definitely different from the flat-on-top Moonwatch-like called "original" here. And, yes, mine shows the narrow Omega logo as well:
Hope that sheds some additional light on that crystal issue - or does it raise just further questions ;-) ?
Kind regards,
F.Antl
- Posts
- 924
- Likes
- 1,778
dialstatic
·Interesting post, thank you! It could be a later original type I guess, as your watch had a relatively late production date. In terms of design, it certainly appears to be a 'missing link' between the Speedmaster-like one and the service replacement.
Oh, and:
😲
Pics please!
Oh, and:
One of my 007s came as a never worn, never sold NOS example to me (it still had the protective wax cover on the caseback)
😲
Pics please!
- Posts
- 2,876
- Likes
- 1,957
TNTwatch
·I just stumbled upon that interesting thread and hope that I can contribute to it as well:
I am a happy owner of several examples of the 176.007 reference with both types of crystals, respectively. But what's maybe the most important insight I can deliver is that I truly believe the initial assumption of what is the (only) "original" (and what a "replacement" crystal; cf. the opening post) is not fully correct. And here's the reason for my claim: One of my 007s came as a never worn, never sold NOS example to me (it still had the protective wax cover on the caseback), together with an Omega extract from the archives, dating it back to January 1975. And this example has (and had ever since from its very beginning) the following crystal mounted.
For a comparison, that's the modern replacement's shape:
My original is clearly different from the modern one (which I also have) AND it's definitely different from the flat-on-top Moonwatch-like called "original" here. And, yes, mine shows the narrow Omega logo as well:
Hope that sheds some additional light on that crystal issue - or does it raise just further questions ;-) ?
Kind regards,
F.Antl
I like the modern one the most though, since the crystal's pronounced bevel goes along well with the profile of the case.
- Posts
- 46
- Likes
- 281
F.Antl
·
Of course, you're welcome (pics are from the archive as the watch was de-NOS-sed ever since):
According to the Omega Extract of the Archives the watch was produced on Jan. 21st 1975 and delivered to Spain (where I bought it almost 40 years later).
Kind regards,
F.Antl
- Posts
- 924
- Likes
- 1,778
dialstatic
·Thanks! Man, that's gorgeous. It even has the hangtag! If we ever need to see what the original sunburst pattern looked like, these pictures are the perfect reference.
Glad to hear you've been wearing it 👍 In this condition, I'd have been tempted to put it in a safe, but that'd be a shame, really.
de-NOS-sed
Glad to hear you've been wearing it 👍 In this condition, I'd have been tempted to put it in a safe, but that'd be a shame, really.
- Posts
- 359
- Likes
- 1,745
timestamp
·Stunning! Wow.
BTW, any opinions on whether 176.007s had the option for the mesh bracelet? Many collectors seem to choose it, because the original bracelet (let alone the 653 end links) are so scarce - but I've read different opinions whether the watch was available with the mesh in the first place.
BTW, any opinions on whether 176.007s had the option for the mesh bracelet? Many collectors seem to choose it, because the original bracelet (let alone the 653 end links) are so scarce - but I've read different opinions whether the watch was available with the mesh in the first place.
- Posts
- 924
- Likes
- 1,778
dialstatic
·Stunning! Wow.
BTW, any opinions on whether 176.007s had the option for the mesh bracelet? Many collectors seem to choose it, because the original bracelet (let alone the 653 end links) are so scarce - but I've read different opinions whether the watch was available with the mesh in the first place.
Nothing definitive, but I highly doubt it originally came on the shark mesh (as it wasn't much of a diver).
- Posts
- 46
- Likes
- 281
F.Antl
·Well, I believe the 'option' was just a pure question of buyer's preference (personally, I never saw that combo depicted or described in a catalogue). If someone wanted it already back then why should a retailer have refused it?
As regards proportions and prevailing taste patterns, I doubt that many opted for the mesh back in the 70s. Even today it looks a little oversized in combination with that watch. But it wears just so good, much better than the original (which is the reason why my original bracelet basically remains NOS until today). Especially in summer it provides you some sort of a cooling effect on the wrist, a pure pleasure.
Btw, here's how my caseback looked like when the watch was bought:
And that's the steel version's trilogy:
Kind regards,
F.Antl
P.S.: @ dialstatic: I love your chocolate pastille comparison! It's not only delicious but also so appropriate - might become my main reason to opt for the Moonwatch-like crystal ;-).
As regards proportions and prevailing taste patterns, I doubt that many opted for the mesh back in the 70s. Even today it looks a little oversized in combination with that watch. But it wears just so good, much better than the original (which is the reason why my original bracelet basically remains NOS until today). Especially in summer it provides you some sort of a cooling effect on the wrist, a pure pleasure.
Btw, here's how my caseback looked like when the watch was bought:
And that's the steel version's trilogy:
Kind regards,
F.Antl
P.S.: @ dialstatic: I love your chocolate pastille comparison! It's not only delicious but also so appropriate - might become my main reason to opt for the Moonwatch-like crystal ;-).
Edited:
Similar threads
- Posts
- 41
- Views
- 8K
- Posts
- 4
- Views
- 6K
- Posts
- 25
- Views
- 3K
- Posts
- 122
- Views
- 56K
