Guys! I have a 105.003.64 fitted with a 1st gen 321 (normally with 2nd or 3rd gen) and with S.N. 245xxxx which is quite out of the range commonly expected to be 2052 7xxx – 2282 7xxx and 2208 9xxx It looks in all aspects fully original and hardly if ever polished, every single detail otherwise matching out perfectly, and not in any way beautified - in fact really tool watch worn. It was confirmed from Omega to have been delivered in Jan 1967. Any ideas/suggestions to this strange match of early movement and late serial no? I have my own theory of course, but nothing really substantiated. In any case I would find it extremely odd to (mis)use a 1st gen 321 movement for anything franken, thanks for your brainstorming!
So you already have an Extract from Omega stating that the movement was placed into a 105.003-64 with a date of production in Jan 1967? If so, what exactly are you asking here?
I dont have a full extract, they were not able to provide, only confirm the movement no delivery date. I just find the combo of a 1st gen 321 in this ref and with such high SN odd..
Let's see the movement? As you say this is not normally something we see. An early movement with a late number. My suggestion would be the movement number bridge has been changed, (or if you like, the bridge was retained and the movement swapped).
My theory is that it didn't leave the factory like that. Franken. But would be interested in other theories.
Well, as long as its just a theory I have been there obviously, but why would anyone use a 1st gen 321 for a franken, when you can fully service a 2998 or 2915 with it? Doesn't make sense to me.
Well, the serial fits fits the case but the serial is clearly wrong for a 1st generation and a 1st generation is clearly wrong for a .003-64 Is it possible the symmetric bridge and needle balance pointer were added to this at some time? BTW, the watch is a beauty.
That would be another theory, though still the serial would be high. Remains a mystery...but for sure the watch is nice, and in fact so much nicer in real than in pics.
Clearly not all the parts started out life together. A proportion or most of the movement has probably been changed. The fact that it looks like an early 321 was used as a donor just suggests that this was what was available to facilitate the repair. Perhaps before these became popular again. Were -64's sold in '67. I would have thought they were well into the -65 then, so perhaps the case back isn't original either.
Just found an interesting post on watchuseek from 2008...perhaps the schematic collectors conception simpy do not rigidly apply to early productions. For sure there were some 64 case backs stills coming out on watches in 67, and for sure they would use whatever the parts available. So just maybe, its an Omega franken, made up from whatever was left in the bottom of the freezer. Just maybe...