There have been afew heated discussions about EOA accuracy and what information Omega has and what they write on the Archive. Notably the Ultraman where watches are verified without archive information.

I have questioned in the past what information Omega have in regards to the military subs. I have been assured that they have the records of which watches they sent to the MOD and Royal Navy and do not rely on the case markings or information from the owner.

Well explain this error @greenecollector @omegaman @dsio

Movement number and case mismatch!

 

Unless there is something really esoteric going on here, I'm not seeing a mismatch, color me confused.

Reference 165.024, check

Caliber 552, check

Serial number 247,xxx,xx, check

Please school me.

 

Unless the watch in hand has different caseback markings then noted to the movement.

But that’s super easy to explain as these where serviced by the MOD and a caseback swap with another watch being serviced at the same time is very plausible.

 

When you say Military Subs do you mean Military SM300s? Omega can hardly be expected to have records for watches Rolex delivered!

I too have concerns about the extract process but I think you may have to explain what it is you feel is out of line here. It is normal for these kinds of extracts to mention the caseback markings.

 

The 0552 Royal Navy watches have serial number range and this is not in it. It should have been designated as MOD

 

so i assume you have the original delivery papers where ALL movement numbers are recorded ? i think omega would be happy if u provide them those ....

 

Where are you getting that range from? An online source like TsoloT? The armed forces all come under the auspices of the MOD so in a sense all mil watches were MOD delivered. 0552 clearly designates Navy so perhaps the extract team have named it as such. Do mil extracts normally say MOD delivered then?

I do perhaps see your point though, were the markings made by Omega themselves or the MOD after delivery, if the latter, without inspecting the watch, unless the MOD for some reason reported back the destination of each serial (unlikely) how the hell would the extract team know which watch had which markings...

 

It is well known to military collectors that the serial numbers of W10 sm300 watches and 0552 watches are very different. They are also distinctive and close together, much like the Ultraman.

This watch has been identified by its case markings on the extract and not by its movement number

 

It is possible I guess but 'well known' isn't really proof that Omega don't have a record. People used to think Chuck's data was gospel, it just isn't. TsoloT has a nice website but having shown some interesting personality traits, I would be wary of placing too much reliance on his info too. Like I asked in my last paragraph above, has it been established at what point in the delivery chain the mil watches were engraved and designated for a particular force, you know W10 for army, 0555 for RM, 6BB for RAF? If this was after leaving Switzerland you have to ask how Omega could have that info, if it was in Bienne then they could reasonably be expected to know. Of course the records might not be complete but lets give them the benefit of the doubt. You are though right to say that in the way this extract is worded, it does sound like they are saying the watch currently has the 0552 back which they must have verified through inspection.

The process certainly is fishy, particularly with the Ultraman and maybe Racing dial models too but I don't think this extract is necessarily the smoking gun you think it is.

 

just as a side notice, this public negative talk about the extracts might lead omega to cancel this service. be aware they read here. the EOA service is a nothing they gain much money so .... if you don't like to end u like the "crown worshipping" guys discuss those topics in private ...

 

It has been suggested to me that omega have invoice records of orders for MOD W10 watches and 0552 Royal Navy watches. That they do not use the case and it’s military engravings as an identifier.

This is exactly what has happened here(not going to debate the veracity of collectors knowledge on these serial numbers, rest assured it is well established information) The case engravings have been used to wrongly attribute the movement number as an 0552 RN watch

 

Yeah guys, don’t upset the big company that we pay money for products and services, or they might stop selling us products and services!

That would teach us!

 

I’m slightly surprised that it says “delivered to UK”, rather than “delivered to the MOD”

 

Never been a big fan, unless it gives some extra information. Unfortunately it has become necessary evil to have one if you want to sell an Omega these days.

 

None of the information stated is wrong but this movement is not original to this case. It has been swapped at some point.
I think that is what people use an extract for, and this is what most people expect it to prove.
This, as Padders said, IS a smoking gun!

 

Ah, gotcha.

So... does it actually matter, is probably the big picture question?

It’s fairly well known and accepted that movement swaps occurred during service... does it matter that this doesn’t have the movement that it left the factory with, but with another, correct movement?

I don’t know the answer, nor have a dog in this fight - mark me genuinely curious.

 

It is a correct movement for another watch(yes a W10) but Not a 0552
My issue is that this is a statement of what you can see with your own eyes and not from the archives. Not worth CHF120

Edit: and it leads people to believe this is an original watch!