Nope. And whilst I really appreciate the research done, the sensational and accusatory tone is exaggerated a little too far. Examples aren’t just the violent gypsy clan mentioned, but also the simple fact that the watch under scrutiny here only came with an Extract of the Archives, according to Phillips. The author refers to that as a “Certificate of Authenticity issued by the Omega Heritage Department” which is quite something else as, unlike the EoA, a CoA would require inspection in Biel. In this case, all Omega did was acknowledging that the serial once left the factory in a 2915-1. Nothing less, certainly nothing more either.
To me, it doesn’t seem like Omega ever inspected the watch in hand, nor did they endorse it. Still, a fraudulent record sale is quite undesirable to Omega, but Omega’s active role insinuated by the author seems unfounded to me, except for bidding on the piece, perhaps.
Still, this article is an interesting read and testifies of serious research done. It just would have been better if it was more factually correct (and slightly less ‘tabloid’ to my taste).