It seems that the N° 461 ASTP dial Speedmaster is the only one numbered above 400... that surfaced so far ?
Correct ?

 

My brain hurts - but this thread continues to entertain, (if only I could really remember exactly what it was about in the first place).

 

I thought it was about astronauts and cosmonauts and their symbolic watch.

But it seems to have come down to..................(time for kittens, or kiddens as my daughter called them as a child).

KITTENS IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE

 

Hi everybody and sorry to come into this thread so late.

Yes, I've been studying the Apollo Soyuz since last 10 years and I always say that what I wrote on my booklet guide are only my personal opinion based on my studies and they could not be considered as the absolute truth. We have to be open to new info and data and our studies never end.

So now,
Dear "SpeedyPhil", the assumption above is only a supposition (as the Author, of that great book that Moonwatchonly is, says in a previous post - "the only number >400 is with an "unofficial" example. But we might be wrong, only supposition at this point.") and it is wrong and I'm going to tell you why.

Here's an original and "official" Omega Apollo Soyuz with case number 47x and movement serial number: 39.181.0xx along with the Omega Extract from the archives that confirms all of this. ( May 3rd 1976 is the second of the four movement batches as "speedy4ever" reported -200x delivered on 12 April 1976, 170x delivered on 3 May 1976, 20x delivered on 11 May 1976, 10x delivered on 5 July 1976.)

The Apollo Soyuz is such an incredible watch with some mysteries to be solved and all we can do is to continue to study and to share as much info and data as possible.

Have a great New Year to all of you
Marco

Here's some pics

 

Curiouser and curiouser....

 

When did Omega start issuing extract of records, with details of dial lume ?

 

hmm, yeah - what he said...

Curious document. Why is the case number (47x) not noted where it says "Case Number" but rather it is mentioned in the remarks.
Does the "extract" have an official signature or seal from Omega?

 

Just noticed similar extract someone posted in separate thread here:
https://omegaforums.net/threads/apollo-soyuz-register-1975.67384/page-2

It also has the case number noted in the remarks.
Is that maybe just how they prepared extracts at that time.
I do not see a date in either of the extracts of when the documents were prepared.

 

Ah ha - so I see. Thanks for the additional info.

 

Hi pennsyl936,
please we are not here to question about that extract, we are here to share more info and data to try to add some more bricks to our knowledge.
This thread is about the "OMEGA Apollo-Soyuz: The hidden truths", particularly we were speaking about the Apollo Soyuz with number >400.

Do you have some info and data to share with us?

And Yes it has everything of course (see pic below) (there is the date too)

(there was a time, a period of time that they use put on more info than nowadays because they used to check watches personally or by pics - please read the following extracted from my booklet:

From a post by "watchtinker" on Orologiepassioni.it:
"you have all noticed that there is a significant difference between the Omega “Certificates” and “Extracts from Archive” of recent years: the former are very detailed, the latter, and particularly the new ones, contain statements like “not mentioned”. This is because the first were issued as a result of the physical examination of the watch, later of the images only, and now on the basis of archive data only.

Hope this help
Marco

 

Think the earlier records they sent out did

 

Maybe, but extracts issued before 2010 would take into account information supplied by the applicant, not necessarily from their archives.

 

Exactly.

We certainly are here to question (individual) extracts if they're from the period where Omega weren't particularly fastidious with the info.

 

Excuse me again, (@dennisthemenace, @Davidt, @bags1971)
problem was to answer “speedyphill” question about original and official Apollo Soyuz with number >400.
Info, pics and data (extract) were posted by me with the only purpose of adding new knowledge to everyone benefit.
Now we know and can state that there are original and official Omega Apollo Soyuz with number >400 and not only so called “De Marchi” ones.

Ciao
Marco

 

One thing is certain; This watch needs so much care ...
the dial seems to be original, while on the caseback I do not see any incision ... no good!

but if we want to make these types of consideration, for me it's ok, but I think we should start looking at some of the many photos that fans and collectors continue to publish on social media.
for example, in May this American boy publishes this photo on Instagram:



this gentleman specifies that the photo was taken during an OMEGA event in Los Angeles.

it is assumed that at OMEGA events "anomalous clocks" or recognized as such should not pollute the event with their presence and above all they should not embarrass the same landlady; in this case OMEGA.
I asked him if these A-S watches were his property and he replied telling me that one of the two A-Ss was from a friend and the other was there on display.
You do not have to be a collector to understand that one of the two watches has been assembled (and not only) badly by someone (and for this specific case I confirm the hypothesis of some of you; the dishonest exist!) And above all I do not even want to know if both the A-S were accompanying the OMEGA Extract d Archive because if the clearly counterfeit clock also had one of the movements between 39.180.000 and 39.181.00 it is very probable that the same Omega has released for this the Extract d Archive .

but I do not want to dwell on this subject, I wanted to know if you too gentlemen, do you see what I see?

- space between OMEGA and A-S symbol
- chronograph funds
- emphasis on written TACHYMETRE,
- the dot moved to number 70
- 12 hours indicators are too big
- written "swiss made" too small

sorry though, even if the right A-S watch should have a correct movement for OMEGA, I do not think this watch is an A-S!

this is one of many examples that demonstrates one thing; that the dishonesty exists and that the innumerable doubts surrounding the Apollo-Soyuz "out of range" watches must be sought elsewhere.

 

That photo in the prior post is mine. Let me add some additional information. The watch on the left is owned by a friend and private collector in Los Angeles, the watch on the right is property of Omega and was displayed at an Omega Speedmaster event hosted in Beverly Hills earlier this year. Unfortunately, I've seen it time and time again where Omega brings frankenwatches to display at their own events, and the collectors at the event have better (i.e. correct) examples. These events are not just for collectors, so for everyone else, they don't see the flaws, they just enjoy the piece and the history. As we have observed many times, Omega doesn't focus on just collectors. Jean-Claude Monachan was at this event, and I didn't see any reason to go bust his chops over bringing this assembled Apollo-Soyuz to the event. If I called out every oddball watch at Omega events, I wouldn't have much time to eat, drink, and socialize.

 

Fully agree.

This re-assembled Apollo Soyuz has been displayed also in Milan for an event at the Omega boutique, and I'm pretty sure I saw it in Paris too.
No question of Omega extracts or De Marchi production here, just a kind of demo example that can travel easily for marketing events, not destinated to pure vintage collectors.

 

Thanks Marco for the information.
That is an important fact, clearly verified, and that is useful for the community.

I'm pleased to see that someone understands the difference between facts and speculation!

 

sorry but I did not understand well; the clock on the right was owned by Omega or a collector?

first of all, I would like to thank you for you clarification, but I do not understand how all these anomalies that presents this watch can go unnoticed, without forgetting that the case of AS interests many collectors and enthusiasts, and that in round there is a lot of want of information. ..
by chance, do you remember the name of the person who exhibited the Omega on the right?

thank you

 

The issue with this is, that as @dennisthemenace says:

So when the person requesting the extract from the archive, was able to provide information which they wanted added... and we have seen this before with watches that are incorrect, but have an extract from pre 2010... the extract is essentially worthless.

I have no skin in the game, and frankly, don't care, but feel that @dennisthemenace very valid point was overlooked.