Community Stories

Omega 1011/1012 question

Ronstrous
Posts
64
Likes
240
Greetings all,

Pardon my ignorance, but I noticed that my 1973 Omega has a 1012 movement, whereas the caseback says 1011.
Doing a Google search I found a similar watch with the same situation.
Is this a mismatch between case and movement, or is there a valid reason for this number discrepancy?


IMG_1193.jpg IMG_1198.jpg New IMG 1199.jpg
 
OzGaz68
Posts
36
Likes
79
Well, as far as I know, cal. 1012 would be the right movement for this watch. Cal. 1011 was a chronometer-rated movement and De Ville watches of that era were not chronometer certified (as far as I know, COSC certification for De Ville watches only became a regular thing with the introduction of the co-axial cal. 2500 in the late 1990s). So why the 1011 on the case? Pass - wiser heads than mine for that one.
 
Claven2
Posts
349
Likes
228
OzGaz68 OzGaz68
Well, as far as I know, cal. 1012 would be the right movement for this watch. Cal. 1011 was a chronometer-rated movement and De Ville watches of that era were not chronometer certified (as far as I know, COSC certification for De Ville watches only became a regular thing with the introduction of the co-axial cal. 2500 in the late 1990s). So why the 1011 on the case? Pass - wiser heads than mine for that one.

Many Deville Prestige watches with 1120's are chronometer grade. They predate the 2500, which came out in the 2000's.
 
OzGaz68
Posts
36
Likes
79
Claven2 Claven2
Many Deville Prestige watches with 1120's are chronometer grade. They predate the 2500, which came out in the 2000's.

Fair point - I'd forgotten about the 1120 (1994-c. 2000??) in the De Ville Prestiges. Likewise, I could be wrong but I thought the 2500 was released to market in 1999?
 
Claven2
Posts
349
Likes
228
OzGaz68 OzGaz68
Fair point - I'd forgotten about the 1120 (1994-c. 2000??) in the De Ville Prestiges. Likewise, I could be wrong but I thought the 2500 was released to market in 1999?

Yes that is right, I just looked it up. Some Deville watches got the first 2500's in 1999.
 
Archer
Posts
29,666
Likes
76,824
1012 is the correct movement for this case.
 
Ronstrous
Posts
64
Likes
240
Thanks for your reply, but do you mean to say that it is correct for a 1012 movement to be located in 1011 case?
 
padders
Posts
10,438
Likes
16,317
You are reading too much into the caseback markings. It is not normal for Omega to stamp the movement number in the back. It likely has another meaning altogether. They have on occasion stamped it on the outside, particularly on 1970s quartz pieces but not to my knowledge on the inside.
Edited:
 
Archer
Posts
29,666
Likes
76,824
Ronstrous Ronstrous
Thanks for your reply, but do you mean to say that it is correct for a 1012 movement to be located in 1011 case?

I'm saying it's not a 1011 case...
 
lejaune
Posts
193
Likes
161
Just curious, is there any physical or material difference between 1011 and 1012, other than one was adjusted/regulated to go through "certification" and the other wasn't?
Edited:
 
OzGaz68
Posts
36
Likes
79
lejaune lejaune
Just curious, is there any physical or material difference between 1011 and 1012, other than one was adjusted/regulated to go through "certification" and the other wasn't?
The material degree of difference between the 1011 and 1012 is minimal - both are 23 jewel date-only units of the same underlying design. The substantive difference lies at the assembly stage - the combined effects of parts selection, parts matching and the adjustment process.

Historically, Omega frequently designed and sourced/built so well that many Omega non-certified movements could (and, in some cases, did) run to the applicable chronometer standards of their time. Similarly, many Omega movements that started their life as non-chronometer designs required only minimal engineering and manufacturing tweaks to meet the standard when eventually submitted for certification (e.g. the Lemania design-derived cal. 1041).
 
Northernman
Posts
4,440
Likes
18,258
OzGaz68 OzGaz68
The material degree of difference between the 1011 and 1012 is minimal - both are 23 jewel date-only units of the same underlying design. The substantive difference lies at the assembly stage - the combined effects of parts selection, parts matching and the adjustment process.

Historically, Omega frequently designed and sourced/built so well that many Omega non-certified movements could (and, in some cases, did) run to the applicable chronometer standards of their time. Similarly, many Omega movements that started their life as non-chronometer designs required only minimal engineering and manufacturing tweaks to meet the standard when eventually submitted for certification (e.g. the Lemania design-derived cal. 1041).

FYI: All Omega chronograph movements made between at least 1932 and 1982 were made entirely by Lemania. This did not change until Omega started using ETA based chronograph movements after SSHI sold Lemania in order to avoid bankruptcy during the “quartz crisis”.

1041 is not derived from a Lemania design. It was designed and made by Lemania for Omega,
Lemania made movements, with various finishing and complications, for a wide range of clients.
 
OzGaz68
Posts
36
Likes
79
Northernman Northernman
FYI: All Omega chronograph movements made between at least 1932 and 1982 were made entirely by Lemania. This did not change until Omega started using ETA based chronograph movements after SSHI sold Lemania in order to avoid bankruptcy during the “quartz crisis”.

1041 is not derived from a Lemania design. It was designed and made by Lemania for Omega,
Lemania made movements, with various finishing and complications, for a wide range of clients.

Yes, I know. That is why I specifically referred to movements "... sourced/built".
 
OzGaz68
Posts
36
Likes
79
OzGaz68 OzGaz68
Yes, I know. That is why I specifically referred to movements "... sourced/built".
Northernman Northernman
FYI: All Omega chronograph movements made between at least 1932 and 1982 were made entirely by Lemania. This did not change until Omega started using ETA based chronograph movements after SSHI sold Lemania in order to avoid bankruptcy during the “quartz crisis”.

1041 is not derived from a Lemania design. It was designed and made by Lemania for Omega,
Lemania made movements, with various finishing and complications, for a wide range of clients.

Plus the in-bold-letters replacement of the word 'chronometer' with 'chronograph' was not necessary since the Speedmaster 125 was both.
 
Northernman
Posts
4,440
Likes
18,258
OzGaz68 OzGaz68
Plus the in-bold-letters replacement of the word 'chronometer' with 'chronograph' was not necessary since the Speedmaster 125 was both.
Sorry. I only meant to point out that Lemania did not have anything to do with other Omega movements but the chronographs (and cal 381).
Did not for a minute consider it could be understood differently. My bad! 👍
 
OzGaz68
Posts
36
Likes
79
Northernman Northernman
Sorry. I only meant to point out that Lemania did not have anything to do with other Omega movements but the chronographs (and cal 381).
Did not for a minute consider it could be understood differently. My bad! 👍
Understood and very much appreciated - thank you for the clarification.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

H

Omega 1012 friction spring

Hitcher Watchmaking
H
Hitcher
Posts
2
Views
907
D

Omega 1000m - 166.093, caliber 1012

DonnyBoy Open Discussion
X350 XJR
X350 XJR
Posts
3
Views
1K
lenndon

Question about Tissot 2481 (Omega 1481) Dial Spacer

lenndon Watchmaking
lenndon
lenndon
Posts
0
Views
108
watchswede

Omega Speedmaster 105.012-66 CB - Bracelet question

watchswede Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
watchswede
watchswede
Posts
7
Views
1K
bazelot

Omega Speedmaster 102.012 65 caseback reference question

bazelot Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
bazelot
bazelot
Posts
4
Views
1K
nanjingcigaretes

1973 Omega Seamaster Chronometer Ref. 168.0061 Cal. 1011 GREAT condition w box - $1,350

nanjingcigaretes Watches For Sale
nanjingcigaretes
nanjingcigaretes
Posts
1
Views
5K