Forums Latest Members
  1. Neyra Mar 26, 2018

    Posts
    147
    Likes
    1,837
    Hi all,

    Thought I’d register and post my story.

    A friend of mine got me interested in nice mechanical watches a couple of years ago. So I started to read about them and browse the internet for what’s on the market. He owns a 44mm Speedmaster Broad Arrow GMT.

    At first I was eyeballing a handwound 42mm Moonwatch but I decided to go for an automatic instead as it was intended for every day wearing and bought a 41mm Seamaster Professional last January.

    Now for the interesting part: my grandfather had died last year and left his watch to my uncle. Since I wasn’t overly interested in watches earlier I had no idea what kind of watch that was. So with my newly found hobby I asked him what kind of watch it is. He sent me a picture and I was blown away! My grandfather had owned the same brand and type watch I bought without knowing it. Also this meant a legendary calibre 321 movement I had read so much about recently. Careful not to offend my uncle I asked him if he wanted to sell it to me. He did and as of yesterday I’m the proud owner of a ref. 14364-2 Seamaster chrono. Exactly 1 year after my grandfather died.
    I’m going to get it serviced and cleaned at a 321 specialist and whip a nice leather strap on it and wear it with pride and that way honour my grandfather.
    Sub dial hands are not the same so something not exactly right there.

    What do you guys think?
    C245C892-7F3D-4EF6-982C-1254AA0CCF70.jpeg 0F785088-C2C6-438D-8C8A-0C2DF866D480.jpeg 4B2F7CB2-7820-4C5C-B1C1-852D20EBA59E.jpeg
     
    Edited Mar 29, 2018
    JohnRaz, Etp095, jam karet and 4 others like this.
  2. cristos71 Mar 26, 2018

    Posts
    7,134
    Likes
    32,881
    Looks great but there 's something not right, your serial starts with 96, can you let us know the complete number.

    If it is a 9.6million serial that's way too early for such a 14364 reference. Also the colour of the movement, lack of 321 signature and general look doesn't sit good with me for a 321. Possibly a 27CHR C12, but that woud also be very early around 1942, or maybe a re-badged something, what I'm not sure, somebody more technical will be along shortly I'm sure...

    Here's more what I would expect from this period, this one from a 14360

    9210_300__578_zpse08f7ec8.jpg
     
    Edited Mar 26, 2018
    Davidt likes this.
  3. Neyra Mar 26, 2018

    Posts
    147
    Likes
    1,837
    Thanks for your reply!

    I had also noticed that the serial number didn’t match with the suggested year of make (1959) because it leads back to the early 40’s. Don’t know what’s going on there.

    About the colour: I have seen that some parts are generally copper coloured instead of grey. Again: no idea why.

    I really hope people on here can help me out. I don’t ever plan on selling so no problem there. The guy I’m bringing it to for service said he had almost all parts in stock so I’m curious what he has to say.
     
  4. Neyra Mar 26, 2018

    Posts
    147
    Likes
    1,837
    Got some info that this could be a transitional model from 321-predecessor calibre 27 CHRO PC AM. Parts should be interchangeable.

    Serial number still somewhat of a mystery. The reference simply leads back to 1959 but now both the movement and the serial number suggest otherwise.

    Thoughts?
     
  5. cristos71 Mar 26, 2018

    Posts
    7,134
    Likes
    32,881
    I think most likely is an early 27CHRO C12 has found its way into your 14364 case. I've just done a little reading and it seems that 9.3million serials are the first batch of these 27CHRO movements, yours being a 9.6 would be consistent with slightly later production.

    How it got there? Well maybe a watchmaker had two 321/27CHRO's on his bench and they got mixed up at some point during service, we'll probably never know!
     
  6. Neyra Mar 26, 2018

    Posts
    147
    Likes
    1,837
    On the vintage part of the Omega website it says ref. 2886 is from 1957 but has the 27chro C12 movement. Some 14 years after most got that movement.

    More questions raised than answered right now, hopefully some new insights from other members!
     
  7. cristos71 Mar 26, 2018

    Posts
    7,134
    Likes
    32,881
    I think your point regarding the Omega website and the ref 2886 is that there it says introduced in 1957 with the 27 CHRO movement, I think that is a mistake and it should read 321

    The 27CHRO movement became the 321 when Omega changed to a 3 digit movement numbering system at the end of the 1940's, I think 1948 or '49.

    Your movement has a serial number from 1943 or '44 which predates your case reference by more than a decade, according to the Omega website the CK 14364 was introduced in 1959 and with the cal 321. AFAIK there are no Seamaster chronographs with the 27CHRO C12

    However you want to look at it the movement didn't start out in that Seamaster case. However it's still a very attractive watch, with a beautiful dial and those fantastic pink gold hands and markers, together with a very sharp case indeed. I'd just have it serviced and enjoy it and the family memories it holds :)
     
    Edited Mar 26, 2018
    Neyra and felsby like this.
  8. Neyra Mar 26, 2018

    Posts
    147
    Likes
    1,837
    I will and the fact that I promised I’ll never sell it makes that it’s somewhat ok.

    However the fact remains this watch has only one previous owner: my grandfather who bought it new and left it to my uncle last year. What could have happened?
     
  9. Neyra Mar 27, 2018

    Posts
    147
    Likes
    1,837
    Isn’t there a “321-God” on here that can enlighten me/us? Archer or something?

    Anyone else? I find it so hard to believe that a watch owned by one man would have a crazy movement-transplant like this?

    All replies would be greatly appreciated!
     
  10. cristos71 Mar 27, 2018

    Posts
    7,134
    Likes
    32,881
    It sounds to me like you are hoping for some better news that is unlikely to come. If as you say it was only owned by your grandfather then I still think what I mentioned above to be the most likely explanation, back in the days these things weren't collectable, just a watch. So perhaps not as much care was taken as today when putting them back together.

    Alternatively your SM chrono could have been butchered at some point in its life for the 1959 cal 321 movement which is now residing somewhere inside of a Franken Speedmaster 2915!
     
  11. Neyra Mar 27, 2018

    Posts
    147
    Likes
    1,837
    Butchered without my grandfather knowing while it was being “serviced”?
     
  12. Dr No Mar 27, 2018

    Posts
    2,203
    Likes
    19,703
    One of my local watchmakers mixed up balance bridges for my 2365 and 2179. Copper vs nickel. How he did that, I'll never know.

    :confused:
     
  13. Neyra Mar 29, 2018

    Posts
    147
    Likes
    1,837
    Allright, so I went to see the watchmaker today. A man who has worked for Omega 30 years as a watchmaker and supervisor. I showed him the watch and said the movement got replaced in what I thought was a scam or at least bad conduct. What he said quite surprised me:

    He said in the 70’s when Omega had celebrated some great years and the “Quartz Crisis” emerged Omega globally had a policy for a period of about 8 years which consisted of maintaining certain amounts of each movement type per country. Periodically some batches had to be sent to Switzerland so they could manage the inventory. This meant, and that blew my mind, that when watches came in for service, it could happen that complete movements were changed for others. He said he was there when it happened. So I asked him if this was in all countries and he said yes. He thought people might now deny it but he was working for Omega when this happened. For the sake of discretion I will not mention his name. Of course this would now be unthinkable, especially given the attraction these movements now have in the vintage market. But the position Omega was in at that time was not good and these types of management decisions were made.

    I expect people on here to flame away. This is not some theory I’m throwing in here, this comes from a man I expect is an absolute connaisseur.

    Has anybody else on here ever heard of this?
     
  14. cristos71 Mar 29, 2018

    Posts
    7,134
    Likes
    32,881
    Did he also explain why Omega would change the movement for one that was:

    1. Not correct for the reference, and
    2. 15 years older than the movement that started out in the watch?

    You also say:

    Is he implying that Omega thought that at that moment in time in the 1970's, in your grandfather's country of residence, that there were too many calibre 321 watches? And for that reason Omega consciously made a decision to replace the movement with a 27CHRO C12?

    I find this explanation a little too far fetched to be honest :confused:

    My biggest doubt would be the question of how on earth would Omega even have a starting point of the number of units of each calibre type per country?

    Without knowing the amount of units per calibre per country it would impossible to, "maintain certain amount of movement type per country" as there is an unknown starting point....
     
  15. ConElPueblo Mar 29, 2018

    Posts
    9,587
    Likes
    26,961
    There could be all sorts of reasons how it ended there - your grandfather could have damaged it at some point (or it could have developed a fault) and the watchmaker he took it to just changed the movement with one he had lying around? Or he could have given your grandfather the option of using the one he had available or supply one from Omega and your grandfather chose the faster and, probably, less costly approach? Everything is speculation in these cases. The explanation from your watchmaker is new to me.

    Which country are you from? I know a watchmaker who worked for an Omega dealership in the late 70s and a lot of years after that, I don't recall him mentioning anything like that, but I could give him a shout.
     
  16. Davidt Mar 29, 2018

    Posts
    10,309
    Likes
    17,881
    In all fairness, the truth possibly lies somewhere in the middle. Just like the exchange policy that Tudor operates with it's new in house movements, I don't think it's inconceivable that in the 70's, in order to increase efficiency during a period where watches were still tools and cheap quartz alternatives were available, Omega operated on an exchange basis. This could explain why a different, but very similar movement ended up in a Speedmaster. @ConElPueblo's suggestion is also very possible. Again bearing in mind that these weren't luxury watches, but daily wearers with no collectible value, that likely need to be returned to use in the quickest, cheapest way available.
     
  17. padders Oooo subtitles! Mar 29, 2018

    Posts
    8,931
    Likes
    13,873
    So in summary your contact suggests your movement may have been swapped out at some point for another superficially similar but not identical at service time? Yes I can full well believe this happened and that is pretty much what everyone else is saying here, whether it was official Omega policy or pure expediency on the part of a watchmaker is open for debate. I think the latter. In fact Omega operate a similar policy today on the compound movements used in the Speedmaster Reduced etc, exchange rather than repair but those have no movement serial to get mixed up. If it were official policy, I think we might have noticed that more Pre-Moon Speedmasters had messed up movements. Yes a few do but not all that were serviced in the 70s by any stretch.

    Nice watch which has a great family connection. Is it a priceless heirloom, no. Does that matter?
     
    Edited Mar 29, 2018
  18. ostneb Mar 29, 2018

    Posts
    53
    Likes
    34
    I just wanted to chime in that regardless of this movement business its a great looking watch and even better story! I wish i had a watch with that much sentimental value!
     
    MCC and Neyra like this.
  19. Neyra Mar 29, 2018

    Posts
    147
    Likes
    1,837
    Your first question I asked him also. He said it’s very well possible.

    To your other remark: it wasn’t the count of total movements sold in the country, rather the number of movements per type at the Omega import and selling points. Those are quite easy to count.

    For me, knowing it was possibly regulated by Omega rather than my grandfather being scammed is giving some comfort. Since I will never sell the watch the financial value is irrelevant. It’s the story that counts and the emotional value it holds. Would I have loved there be a 321 movement in there? Yes. Am I going to cherish it and wear it with pride? Absolutely.
     
  20. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Mar 29, 2018

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,049
    Omega has procedures for implementing a local movement bank:

    WORKING INSTRUCTION NO. 64 - IMPLEMENTING AND ADJUSTING OF A LOCAL MOVEMENT BANK

    In that document methods of calculating the number of movements to keep in a movement bank are outlined. I can't say how they may have done this in the 70's but now they do it based on the number of watches of the same type that have been serviced at that local facility over the past 2 years. Doing it based on how many watches are sold to a region really doesn't make much sense, but doing it based on how many have been serviced in a recent time frame certainly does.

    The bank is calculated so that movements would turn over at a given period of time, and a minimum floor of 5 movements per year is where they don't recommend creating a movement bank - but even then movements can be exchanged on an as needed basis.

    In the end no one knows exactly how this exchange happened, and really it's irrelevant...

    Cheers, Al