OMEGA Apollo-Soyuz: The hidden truths

Apollo-Soyuz

OMEGA Apollo-Soyuz: The hidden truths

forgive my english...i'm italian

Hello to all,
I would like to share with you this research I made on this very rare Omega watch. Regarding to this Apollo-Soyuz model watch there have always been too many "hidden truths" that, after 41 years after the birth of this amazing clock, I felt the need to find them out.


Brief Outline of History
For the Distribution Of its watches, on October 28th, 1970, OMEGA CH stipulated and agreement with some European companies. In Italy the Exclusive Distribution was entrusted to F.lli De Marchi Ltd based in Turin in Via Gioberti. Omega gave The Exclusive Right to the company to sell and distribute in Italy The watches branded OMEGA, preventing an Italian Any other dealer to buy directly from OMEGA CH.

THE SAME distributor dealt whith:

· Promote the Distribution of the brand

· ensure Maintenance service

· use the trademark for advertising

· Organize a maintenance service and repair to ensure international Warranty

· keep a permanent inventory of the Main Models of OMEGA’s collection

The Italian distributor, Fratelli De Marchi, was in charge Also for the important task of making SOME models of watch cases and bracelets suitable for the peculiar taste of its customers and to make the internal movements Operation of the watches imported From OMEGA Headquarter in Switzerland.

The production of watches through local partner (Licensed OMEGA) Had Been maintained until the quality directives of OMEGA were satisfied,

without forgetting That the physical production of All Movements Dedicated To New watches were made in Bienne (CH). The reasons why OMEGA decided to continue this type of activity, ended in 2000, are unknown.

That’s why the watches called "OMEGA Apollo-Soyuz-Ita" arrved to the Italian dealers of Omega.

Today considerations
The assembly of many Apollo-Soyuz watches was run by F.lli De Marchi (OMEGA partners), which assembled as they needed a number of watches Apollo Soyuz for the Italian market.

The Apollo Soyuz identified as "made in licensed" have the serial numbers ranging from 31.xxx.xxx to 33.xxx.xxx, the bottoms were regularly stamped with its own progressive serial number and many of them have buttons from 5.0 mm . in diameter.

Today OMEGA CH has no intention to recognize as official these Apollo-Soyuz-De Marchi although in the 70s their Italian partner held the full right to distribute and, as in this case, assemble the OMEGA watch (MADE IN LICENSE).

Omega CH, through the extract archive, is not able to go back to the numbers of the inserted movements within these Apollo-Soyuz-DeMarchi, nor by the number engraved on the back. We are facing a model repudiated by the Swiss mother house.

Without any concrete reference master, it is easier to support the non-existence of these watches (Apollo-Soyuz-De Marchi) than to recognize that Omega made a mistake.

Because of the agreement made between Omega CH and local partners, we find ourselves facing with a delicate and controversial issue; because of this unjustified behavior, existing owners of Apollo-Soyuz-DeMarchi literally feel cheated and demand for clarification. It would be fair and proper to categorize what a local but yet official partner of Omega realized 37 years ago.

In the absence of prior arrangements, no company in the world agrees to sell its product, without checking and approved a sample, no one.


Conclusions and Considerations
It’s false to say that the correct number of movements inserted in watches Apollo-Soyuz are BETWEEN 39180000 and 39181000

The extract archive of Omega not 'Able to determine whether this or Another movement was used for Omega Apollo-Soyuz because SOME assemblies were made directly in Turin by Fratelli De Marchi.

So far, there are no stamped bottoms with the same serial number.

OMEGA CH does not have an official chart that links the number of the watch movement with the number engraved on the case back

for the last point above we have the demonstration when on 14th and 15th April 2007 OMEGAMANIA, run by Antiquorum, sold at auction N'2 watches considered Apollo-Soyuz "Originals" from OMEGA mother house, but presenting serial numbers different from what the original site declared (No. 39927934 and no. 45585460).


Conclusions and Other Considerations

· The movement of my Apollo-Soyuz, number 31.31x.xxx, According to Tables Omega-Cronomaddox- Hartmann-sweeping by hand (see the dedicated section), should be made between 1971 and 1972. Involuntarily the Director of OMEGA Museum in Biel found the Documentation Submitted to the movement in my watch, confirming me that this specific serial number belonged to a group of 158 pieces delivered 12th June 1975 (see Letter SIGNED OMEGA).

· The head of the Omega Museum in Biel furthermore supports that to grant a local partner the freedom to PRODUCE watches was an error, Even though the Agreements between the parties did not forbid it (SEE on the site "Official Gazette of the European Community")

· Omega decided to leave everything to chance, demonstrating total disregard to this issue; inexplicable attitude that causes disappointment to those whom 37 years ago showed his confidence by buying their product.

Another unresolved issue!

The head of the OMEGA Museum in Biel, Mr. Brandon, sent me a copy of the invoice of my watch.

The comparative chart found on the web, associates the movement of my watch (31.316.xxx) to a production between 1971 and 1972. The manager of the MUSEUM did I have the invoice of my watch despatched from OMEGA to Italian partners of those years (Fratelli De Marchi). In this bill, dated 1975, shows my watch movement number near to a written label "Speedmaster Professional".

Mr. Brandon, to make a comparison, sent me a second bill (dated 1976) that, in his opinion, would have to prove that all the Apollo Soyuz watches are labeled "APOLLO" next to the serial number.

Coming into possession of the invoice at my watch I was able to prove that the movement added to my clock was not built in 1971 (or in 1972 as claimed by other private inventories) but rather in 1975, the year of production of the Apollo Soyuz watches.

This "new discovery" disproves all those lists published on the web, considered reliable in recovering the production year of OMEGA movements.

In my case, it was not!


Simone Zucchelli

that's it...

lowen

I am very sorry but I do not understand your point.

First of all, please don't mix the Speedmaster 125 story with this one. In fact, we know Andy, we know that there are questions about this model but we haven't worked on that subject yet. The very few information we have indicated on the 2nd edition of MWO about those models is very synthetic and not supported by deep research, contrary to what we've done for the Moonwatch models.

Going back to our Italian story... I didn't want to be negative about any custom or practice in Italy. Again, I live in Italy! And I've travelled and worked in an international context for many years, with many different cultures and backgrounds... So this is not the point. What I was trying to explain is that it is obvious that the agreement with De Marchi was not well defined, that De Marchi has certainly leveraged on that lack of precision during those years, and that the global organization of Omega and their partners was not so efficient in the 70s. Where's the problem with that? I mean, this is not a scoop...

And this is the first point.

Second point: I don't understand your statement. Are you explaining that Omega did produce 500 watches, 400 of them directly in factory and 100 others asking De Marchi to assembly them locally? Is that your idea? And you justify it by the fact that we (both MWO and Omega) found the invoices for the 400 first ones but just missed the invoice or the document justifying the 100 others? Did I get your point?

Well, maybe. You know, one of the most important things we learned during this long work, by working a lot, trying to be as rigorous as possible, and by meeting many serious collectors and passionate people, is Humility. Everything is possible, and there is always a probability to be wrong. The only way to manage this is to be transparent, and to write (and believe 100%) only certified and justified information.

Please read again what I wrote in my 1st post. I've written that the only thing we are able to certify is that a) 400 watches were produced by Omega and b) Omega has sent spare parts including standard 861 movements to De Marchi. Nothing more. So all we can say that Omega has produced 400 Apollo Soyuz watches. This is certified information.

All the rest is pure speculation:

- Assumption (and speculation) 1 is that there was an agreement between Omega and De Marchi, and that would obviously mean that the 100 other watches are 'official'. In that case, if we or Omega or anyone find a document justifying this specific agreement, we will all agree on the fact that we have solved the problem and that all those watches are ok.

- Assumption (and speculation) 2 is that maybe this agreement doesn't exist, and that it was a local idea of De Marchi to assembly more watches (how many? why 100? do we have the proof?). In that case, we can all agree that they are not official watches, isn't it?

My idea is that the most probable hypothesis is the 2nd version. And that's it.
You have mentioned MWO, and thanks for your kind comments about it. This post is very coherent with the way we worked at that time: we have written only about facts, not stories. That is the reason why we did not write more about those Apollo Soyuz in the book. And that is the reason why I can not agree with this 'Omega mistake' without any concrete proof or explanation.

And I don't undersatnd your point about dials and other parts identifying a watch more than just a movement. Well, that seems not 100% correct. If I take a standard Speedmaster delivered in Japan in 2004, and fit it with a grey and orange racing dial, do I have a real Japan Racing Special Edition? I don't think so...

pdxleaf

How would that have worked?

It is difficult to imagine a scenario where a product that contains parts manufactured by a company is sold before they are received by a retailer.

Are you suggesting that Di Marchi recived parts before receiving complete watches and then put together watches and sold them before ever receiving complete watches from Omega? Why would they do that?

How do you know that it was sold originally without the correct pushers?

Was the watch ever serviced at any time that your father owned it? Is it possible that the original pushers were replaced during service?