OMEGA APOLLO SOYUZ: Happy 45th birthday

pdxleaf

One aspect that could help clarify the discussion (at least for me) is the number of watches being discussed. It's seems there are only a few, perhaps as few as 7. I have read conclusions stating as many as 70 to 100 or other statements that seem to indicate there are many watches. But we keep coming back to one, two, or as many as seven.

From our discussion here, I think we have agreed that any watch with only a dial is illegitimate, so my assumption is that we would only raise evidence from a watch that has all elements except the case and 5.5mm pushers. Again, those are very few. There may be many watches with only the AS dial but if we agreed that they are not legitimate then we can ignore those, correct? (I am assuming the 286, 288, 416, 461 and 468 all have every element except the 5.5mm pushers, which we are referring to as the AS Demarchi group.)

The reason I bring this up is frankly, it is problematic to me to draw conclusions about an entire production based on an oddball watch or two. I now understand why people approach this with scepticism.

Also, did you have a follow up discussion with Omega regarding the other elements besides the serial number? I myself would not be able to draw a conclusion about whether a watch is authentic based on this one discussion with Omega. Omega simply did what everyone does when evaluating a watch, they went to the most obvious data point, which was the serial number. No sense looking further if the first data is incorrect. So once you determined the 416 was a normal speedmaster shipped to De Marchi, what did they say next? (I apologize if this was already discussed.)

From what I have read thus far, the 416 does not have an extract from Omega stating it was transformed but the 468 does have an extract saying it was transformed. Is this an accurate statement?

Archer

Replacement dials are available from Omega if you need one - part number is 064QMZ010527. 😉

Archer

I've changed lots. Although I don't keep 200 in stock, I probably have 30 in stock at any given time, and I'm a one man shop.

Foo2rama

Wait you think 10,000,000 watches where made by omega in 1975?

why? I think I know your answer and it contradicts your theory on everything.

Foo2rama

Your the one presenting things as facts when they are not. You constantly make 2 logical errors on n your deductions.

the first is basically this. Prove unicorns do not exist. You prove it by saying it be not seen one nor has anyone I know. The problem is that is not proof.

2nd logically in the mid to late 70’s the things that everyone has have postulated make way more sense then your explanation.

Archer

200 dials? I answered a question you asked about pushers. This thread gets so confusing (wondering if intentionally sometimes) because people don't take the time to explain what they are saying. They assume everyone is on the same page but often that is not the case.

I simply answered your question, asking who here has ever changed a pusher - I change them all the time mate. I keep plenty in stock, and I would expect any shop that sells and services watches to do the same.

Foo2rama

No, I do not believe they exist, but the reasoning you are using to prove they do not exist is saying it must not exist as you have not seen one. I cannot prove you are a not a 3 foot tall green man that lives under a bridge, but since I have not seen proof otherwise am I to assume you are? That is your logic. In cases like this which you try to disprove a negative, all you can say is the preponderance of all evidence seems to state they do not exist. You pick and choose and even contradict yourself in your "proof"

That is a logical fallacy. You keep saying they never sent dials to De Marchi as you have not seen an invoice for them. YOU CANNOT MAKE THAT LOGICAL LEAP. You simply cannot disprove a negative its impossible. Yet you are using that to claim they never sent dials to DeMarchiu, while you admit they sent dials to demarchi for them to assemble the watches. You constantly contradict yourself, or use flawed logic to prove a point.

You also admit the extract process has issues and can be inconsistent esp in the notes section, but refuse to think that might be the case when you have 1 or 2 extracts that says what you want it to say, and there are way more which dispute what you claim as fact. Why do you only accept data that agrees with your stance? That is called confirmation bias. You admit that De Marchi made watches from kits, but the watchmaker claims they never did. So which is it?

All I am saying is stop claiming these are facts that you have not proven until you can actually prove it. You have a theory, and most people think that your theory makes no sense in how things are actually done and the time period, people spot the multiple problems with your theory that you fail to resolve. You do not appear to even be able to see the basic contradictions in your thinking.

pdxleaf

(I am assuming the 286, 288, 416, 461 and 468 all have every element except the 5.5mm pushers, which we are referring to as the AS Demarchi group.)

pdxleaf

Okay, so not many watches, just 4 with 5mm pushers, 2 with unusual serial numbers, and one with correct pushers and above 400 (i.e. 476).

To me, the invoice simple shows that the 4 watches came from watches sold to De Marchi. It doesn't mean that De Marchi converted or even intended to convert all of those watches. It just means they ordered normal speedmasters to sell.

The compelling evidence is your extract from Omega for 468. But even that simply establishes that De Marchi transformed watches with original parts. It does not establish that Omega considered them part of the AS LE.

The extracts are key. If the other 3 watches do not have an extract that says they were transformed or identifies them as having AS dials at least, then for me, i would place a higher probability on them being illegitimate, even though they came from De Marchi.

One additional area I haven't read discussed is the caseback. The engraving of the medallion space crafts looks different on those casebacks. The size of the continents and rocket look different to me. Has anyone else noticed this?

It seems strange to me that there were supposed to be be 400 or 500 of these but there is one known invoice of 170 AS watches sent to De Marchi (the one's with 5.5mm pushers converted by Omega but sold by De Marchi.) Given that these were not hot items and were slow sellers, it seems reasonable to think that's all that were ever available, only 170. And of those, it seems reasonable to think many did not sell, which is consistent with only about 40 known watches. Regarding number 476, it seems possible to me that there was a random one-off order later for a watch and Omega grabbed one or put one together from random parts, which became 476. I don't think that because this watch is numbered 476 that it proves there were 475 watches before it.

The mystery for me is where are the rest of the AS watches from the original invoice of 170.

EDIT: one more thing about the original 170 AS sent to De Marchi, we should not assume they were numbered in order. They very well could have been randomn numbered casebacks that were grabbed by Omega and mailed out to make up the 170 ordered. #476 could also have been in here.

I am leaning towards discounting any watch that does not have 5.5mm pushers as being an AS watch. I would love to own a De Marchi transformed watch myself and think it has a historical significance, but personally I would not place it in the same value as an AS with 5.5mm pushers. To me, it's more like a watch with a Mitsukoshi dial added. Still a speedmaster, still an original dial, still a cool watch, but not part of the original edition.

This is an interesting discussion. Thanks for everyone sharing the fruits of your hard work and research.

Last thing, yes, there is a lot of discussion about this but I don't think it is the most discussed speedmaster watch. There is a lot of discussion about that ultraman chronograph hand for example. A lot. This seems pretty normal for a special watch.

OK.

Cheers,

Dave

Lurk41

Now, how could De Marchi have added the numbers on the caseback without overlap? Simple: the AS was exclusive to them. At the very least they knew all the numbers that were allocated. Most likely, they were the ones engraving all the LE #. That would also explain why Omega cannot relate the LE# to the serial, the archives not listing the De Marchi "modified" ones, and the gaps (095 is doubtful, though...)

You have to remember the AS was commissioned by De Marchi for the Italian market. It was not initiated by Omega.
Bienne could have validated the design and let De Marchi order watches (as well as spare parts) as much as the Italian company felt. After all, it looked nice and De Marchi was paying. No risk for Omega. They might have no idea about how limited it will be. In the end, the only thing they got was 3 (4?) orders of complete watches for a total of 400 of them. The rest, only De Marchi can tell... What we know is they were entitled by Omega to modify watches, and it was common for them to assemble watches from parts.

pdxleaf

Thanks, more to think about.

Yes, we should actually focus on the case. It has a deeper facet and can be distinguished from the non-5.5 mm case. People use 5.5 pushers as short hand but I agree that the case is more significant than just the 5.5mm pushers.

I am not entirely clear on your thoughts. I don't disagree with your points. Did i give the impression that I don't think De Marchi transformed watches? I did not mean to say that. I trust that he did. I think you were making the point that De Marchi had access to the bracelets so could have used those in the transformation, which makes sense.

I missed the pqrt that demonstrated De Marchi received 3 shipments of AS watches from Omega. That would explain where the 400 number is from. I have only seen the one invoice of the 170 watches. Are there copies of the other invoices? Not disputing you, just would like to see them.

Thanks,

Dave

pdxleaf

It doesn't make sense to me that only one extract says transformed by Demarchi and the other extracts would not