Than you William for the very informative updated post on your web-site.
What this thread does for me is further muddy the waters relating to the credibility of extracts and the importance given to them in recent years. It is clear that Omega are prepared to add information to extracts based on seeing a watch, or sometimes just pictures of a watch.
Even if their intentions are good, I think that the information should be restricted to what can be found in the records, not giving provenance based on probability, or what we can see ourselves by inspecting the watch.
It is clearly confusing collectors and adding huge value to watches based on the possibly limited hands on experience in the Museam.
So???... this has been a fascinating thread to follow, but are we going to see the pictures of these watches with their 3 identifying characteristics?
(Quote from Vintagewtchzilla) might be wrong but for a all correct ultraman it needs :
A) red hand ... checked
B) deep black glossy dial ... didn’t see that
C) caramel lume (like ALL real ones have)
William makes a very important point. What are the museum team looking for when they inspect an Ultraman?
Are they measuring the hand and checking the serial? If so what's to stop a non original Ultraman with a correct chrono hand (I get they're rare) being issued an extract?
In the other hand do they actually have info in the archives? If so, why do they need to inspect it?
I guess (and hope) this is nothing they will disclose. Enough built-to-spec watches already today
Oh man, my 145.012 is a 2607XXXX...wonder if I am sitting on a gold mine
No correct orange hand - no party
If I understand correctly, he has to source a correct UM-hand, put it on the watch, send it to Bienne to have an extract, and have its value quadruple ?
Thank god for the rarity of the UM chrono seconds hand!
Nope also the dial characteristics have to match
with impeccable timing WOK have one in the next auction.
Hope this helps...
See the pics below for Ultraman (with extract) vs 105.012. Sorry, I don’t have an exact comparison to hand but I think it should work. You should be able to see that the UM has a black dial vs the 105’s grey. With the flash on, the dial is shiny and the 105 is matte. Pics taken with iPhone in natural light, no filter.
I'm disappointed in myself for taking 12 pages to get this through my head... I didn't know that Omega doesn't actually have record of which S/N's were fitted with orange chrono hands. My assumption was that of many others here - that the extract remarking the fitting of an orange seconds hand was a matter of record. Assuming @Cad290 is still keeping up with this thread and has put down the bazookas, I wonder if he has any honest photos that might show these attributes.
Great information to know regardless.
Do we know the Omega museum are checking for this?
Like @Spacefruit says, if they are, this is straying quite drastically away from being an extract and towards a verification.
Really, if the info regarding the hands isn't in the archives already, it can't be "extracted" and this is an entirely new service.
So the next question is, are the glossy dials specific to the watches with orange hands, or are many 145.012 with serials in the 26,07x,xxx range fitted with this dial?
I was led to believe (and saw it in my hands at a GTG, side by side, as in your first photo (couldn't find any pics however)) that the difference as visible in your lovely pics is normal when comparing a regular 145.012 and 105.012 (i.e. 145.012's are darker and glossier in general) but that the difference between a regular and ultraman 145.012 is markedly more different (as described) ... just another $0.02 to this cracker of a thread ...
Edit : 'i was led to believe' from an illuminating discussion with an impeccable gentleman who has held many many many more watches in his hands then I...but from my own observations, i can not generalize. I am sure that some in this thread own enough specimens to be able to make this distinction (or squash it).
I owned and own at least two with that glossy black blueish dial but without orange hand. And at least one in the right serial range. I will elaborate that later, kid bedtime now.
is already answered, and will for sure not be answered in a public thread
this thread drifts to a "how to build ..." so i hope this stays a open question
I neglected to mention that 145.012-67 I posted earlier is in the UM range.
Do you have an extract for it showing the orange hand detail by any chance?
The dial you posted certainly is quite glossy. I wonder if it's a function of the serial range or an actual correlate with having an orange hand.
In other words is a glossy dial highly sensitive for UM extract confirmation or highly specific or both?
You are right of course, at least from my limited knowledge. Perhaps that’s why we aren’t seeing proper comparison pics, as the difference is hard to photograph. I can see if I can find a correct reference for a photo. Or someone else?
Separate names with a comma.