I ordered an Extract of the Archives for my Seamaster 300 2913-6 with 15m serial number, only to hear back a while later that the Extract was not available for it:

"...due to the nature of vintage archives in certain cases information has not survived, is unreadable or even missing.

We regret to inform you that unfortunately the provided serial number (15.354.xxx) falls onto that category, so we are unable to issue an Extract of the Archives."

Of course I understand it's possible that for whatever reason this information may not have survived, but I can't help but wonder if this is Omega's polite way of not sending back an Extract that identifies my watch as a put-together.

Has anyone here ever received an Extract indicating that the movement wasn't originally installed in their watch? Or have others gotten the same message back?

 

Were some thread before on this: main reason if I recall correctly, was that Omega 1) do not have all the archives in place anymore, esp. on older ones and/or 2) they never had.
Others might be more knowledgable.

In general I think Omega will tell you more directly if the watch doesn't add up, but that's just my 2c

 

OK cool, thanks! @cicindela Real or franken, the Seamaster isn't going to be offered for sale anytime soon - the extract was more for my own curiosity about this lovely watch (currently out for service - I miss it!)

I'm guessing it was produced in 1959 or 1960 but I'd really love to be able to know exactly when

 

If the serial number of your movement was recorded but it turned out to have originally come in a different reference case then you would have received an Extract for the movement but then with the original reference case and not a Seamaster 300 2913.

I once had a 165024 which had this issue, I kept reading and re re-reading that bloody Extract until the truth finally dawned.....

 

I will add that your serial does seem very early for a 2913-6.
I have:
2913-1 with a 16.4 million production May 1960
2913-6 with a 16.6 million production May 1961
14755 with a 19.6 million production May 1963

 

Yes, serial 15.3x is way to early. The earliest 2913 subreferences I have or have seen falls in these serial ranges, typically!:
2913-1 = 15.9x (edit: 15.7x) to 16.0x, produced from late 1957 to early/mid 1958 (@cristos71 , are you sure your's is a -1 and not a 2 or 3?)
2913-2 & 2913-3 = 16.3x to 16.5x, produced from late 58 to early/mid 60.

The 2913-6's most often have 16.46x to 16.6x, produced late 60, some overlapping serial and production with -3, -4 and -5's.

I had no problem getting an extract for my 16.07x 2913-1, which is from marts 1958...

...so

@abrod520
Is your's with cal. 500 or 501... and how many Jewels ~ what does the text on the rotor say?

 

I once received that extract for a 105.003 !!

 

I asked them to verify the infos. Turns that they made a mistake. They sent me a correct one few days after

 

I probably should have waited to start this thread until I got it back from service, so I could open it up and double- check. It's a Cal. 501 but I didn't note the other inscriptions besides the serial. I'm almost positive it's a 15, but when magnifying the one garbage photo I took, it looks like it could be a 6:

 

I think you are right here, it is a -2 or -3, I wasn´t thinking when I wrote it and for some reason always get mixed up on exactly which - this one is

 

Edit: 2913-2 or -3 with a 16.4 million production 1960

 

Does look like a 5...like the fourth digit 5.
Well, post a picture when you get it back. Really interested in that rotor inscription.
Won't rule out that serial 15.3x could be some early batch used later on, just not very likely. Does the rest of the watch look original?

 

The 5 does look like the #4 digit, but if you magnify the photo it begins to look like it could be a 6 - though the light could just be causing that phenomenon.

The rest of the watch does look fairly original, though I'm no expert.

 

You receive this kind of message when the microfilm is not readable any more or if it is damaged or if this part of the film is missing.
Their "books" is mostly microfilm...

Hope this helps to understand the problems they have to face sometimes.

 

My 2913-1 is 157.... has archive extract from December 1957.

 

Yep, remember yours Ash. Think it's the earliest I've seen. Thought it was a 15.9x though.

 

I might have said that in the past(?) as off the top of my head I thought it was. I had it out yesterday to check as I'm thinking of sending it off for a long needed service.
BTW do the other -1's you know of have the case back writing around the bevelled edge like mine? I was told by one collector that it was only the first couple of hundred made that had this, but I've seen no other info on this.

 

Cool, I´ve not seen that before

 

Yes, all -1 I have seen have this caseback writing. Also on my own example from march 58 ;-) I have about 10 examples in my archieves and they all have it. Some are however very faint because of polishing.