Based on the Roman Hartmann serial number chart, the 27mil serial number belong to the year 1969. But by 1969, only 861 were made. Can anyone shine a light on this?

 

Parts replaced into a 321 from an 861?

 

Isn't there some conjecture as to the veracity of the serial charts? Seem to remember that being discussed in the past.

 

I have seen several discussions on this in other forums. Con-census seem to be that +/-2 years must be accepted as deviation from the lists.
Remember that Lemania made batches of movements, and Omega cased them as needed. Your case was made in 1967, but it does not imply that it hit the stores that year.
All looks fine!

 

My '67 321 is 2500xxxx and my '69 861 is 3059xxxx, both have an Omega extract of the date authenticity.

I also have 861's 2842xxxx and 2960xxxx so a 27mil could easily be a '67 321

If you own the watch then to know for certain you could contact Omega for the archive extract.

 

According to OMEGA: "all movements of cal. 321 from 1940 until 1960 = total units: 40’800 – when “freezed”, then the movement number was already engraved on each movement plate."

The movements were from the beginning with OMEGA and already engraved with unique serial number. But the movements did not follow a chronological assembly. We can see 321 serials corresponding to 67-68 in 64-65 case references. Which means the cases were already in stock, just like the movements.

It's not surprising -67 having a 27 Mill serial. It would be more surprising having a 16 to 22 Mill serial.

 

I am a very recent newcomer and still learning this being my first response to any topic. I have recently noticed that my 105.003-65 has same movement number as 5 of the astronauts on the Nasa Flown List i.e. 24957xxx (obviously the last 3 digits are all different) and these were all 105.012. How does that happen? Have now ordered an Extract of Archives but don't expect it to tell me much as I've owned this watch since new.

 

NASA did not order special numbers, it's purely a coincidence. Which is great by the way.

 

RANDOM, according to OMEGA again.

 

+/- 2 years, got it. Thanks, all! Will take some pics when this is in hand

 

this is wrong...

 

He specializes in 'wrong'.

The search is on!

 

Can you please elaborate on what exactly is wrong with rolexfantastics statement?
(I haven't read all of the "other" thread but I certainly don't share his views there, in the first couple of pages I've read at least)

I'd also been told in the past that all of the 321 movements were produced prior to 1960.

Copy of a letter from Omega (to another collector, not myself)

"Dear John - once again thank you for you big interest and information.

We have indeed produced all movements of cal. 321 from 1940 until 1960 = total units: 40’800 – when “freezed”, then the movement number was already engraved on each movement plate.

Therefore, the movements were used as required until 1968 when the replacement calibre 861 was gradually introduced. In other words, we had delivered “old” cal. 321 watches at the same time of the “new” references having the new cal. 861. This explains why certain movement numbers were not in “ sequence”.

The only reason for a change of calibre was due to the fact that any repair of the cal. 321 was extremely time consuming – hence, the production of cal. 321 was stopped in 1960 and this calibre was used-up until the replacement cal. 861 was ready for manufacturing; a entire new concept of production had been made and the actual cal. 861 is much easier to repair, without having lost anything of its high chronograph quality.

The movement number cannot be delivered as a continuous sequence and might have been delivered without taking into consideration “when” they were produced. Basically, we never had a continuous numbering of the movements for cal. 321 – a “package” of numbers was then assigned to the production lane, without taking into consideration when they have been produced.

As a matter of policy, the indicated date is the date of shipment of the complete watch and not its production date.
br"


See discussion on TZ-UK back in 2010 - starts from post #5 (includes above letter)
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?104568-Vintage-Speedy-question-any-experts-out-there

 

Sorry, '40800' and 'all produced before 1960' is wrong. We did research directly at the archives. That will be one the 'scoops' of the Moonwatch Only

 

Thank you.
I'm not "signed up" yet for a copy. I'll have to get on to that.