Everyone fawned over that Air and Space Museum thread, that's where NASA sends the flight-worn speedies. Maybe govment isn't all bad?

 

In the OP's place, I would also disappear from view and quietly figure things out. He bought a nice watch and now, through no fault of his own, it looks like he may be in a difficult situation.

 

This is definitely the most fun we've had in awhile.

 

In the OP's place, my wife would have already sold it.

 

I think the best outcome for the OP would be if NASA has already written off this watch as "missing" and removed it from their inventory. In that case, the watch may no longer be considered government property. I don't know how long an item has to be missing for before the US government writes it off.

Possible scenario:
Astronaut gives his issued Speedmaster to engineer grandad as a way of thanking him for his outstanding work. Astronaut then tells NASA that he "lost the watch" and his pay is docked to pay for the loss. The item in question is then removed from NASA's inventory.

Only someone with access to NASA's inventory records will be able to clarify the chain of possession for this watch.

 

View attachment 1566412

View attachment 1566414
View attachment 1566415

The OP could try contacting [email protected] to see if the watch is still listed in NASA inventory

https://www.nasa.gov/offices/LMD/programs/equipment_management

 

Black helicopters are now circling the OP's house.

Bad times ahead maybe unless provenance can be proven absolutely. Maybe the grandson wasn't so stupid after all...

 

This post has turned out to be Fascinating! Thank you OP.

 

Or NASA won’t ever know about it unless it comes up for public auction. OP already sold it to Spacefruit behind the scenes and he’s using it as his new daily. This is fun.

 

Or NASA never had the watch in the first place. Can anyone say watchco?

 

This all may be a masterbatory exercise at this point- but it’s an interesting topic from a government property rules perspective.

The above is all boiler plate gov’t property management. If the asset has already been written off inventory as “inactive”, there shouldn’t be an issue. If the gov’t were to claim ownership after it popped up at auction, I would ask to see a lost/damaged/stolen property report showing the watch was listed as missing from inventory. There is always a paper trail when it comes to inventory. If they can’t prove it was stolen, then the assumption is that it was surplussed. Either way, I would put the burden of proof of ownership on them.

 

+1

 

Says the gov’t lawyer to the gov’t acquisitions specialist.

 

We know from whence we speak.

 

trouble twins

 

Op's expert witnesses, Your Honor.

 

You know what happens when you ASSume things, right? Right?

 

I really have nothing to add here other than the observation that the condition of the watch appears perfect with no markings or any wear visible. No marks on the lugs showing strap changes, no wear on the back if it was worn on a NATO strap, good condition gasket, no marks on inside of case, dial looks excellent, movement, too. It justs appears too perfect for a 45 year old watch.

It is fun, though, to see the mass mental onanism that the appearance of this watch has produced. Continue on.

 

I'd be more skeptical of its originally if it weren't for the movement serial number being so close to that of the one that was pulled from auction. And as @w154 mentioned, the difference in serial numbers is exactly the same as the difference in (presumably) NASA's SN on the case. Unless it's possible to counterfeit the movement sn...