- Posts
- 2,736
- Likes
- 4,326
lillatroll
·Brilliant thread and very educational. It would be nice if there was someone from Omega who could add some clarification as to what the truth of the situation is.
OMEGA Apollo-Soyuz: The hidden truths
- Posts
- 461
- Likes
- 353
TsoloT
·Hello everyone,
Usually I don't write here, not because I don't like the forum but just because of a lack of time...
And I'm realizing that I'm wrong, because this forum is becoming (and has always been) more and more interesting.
I've read also the other post on the Seamaster FAP, with a lot of attention, but this is another story.
What I would like to do here (or try to do) is to establish a fair statement of this Apollo Soyuz issue, that I know quite well.
I've always loved this watch, maybe the most attractive Speedmaster limited series ever made by Omega (together with the Tribute to Astronauts 1969), and we have studied this case during the Moonwatch Only work sessions in Biel.
I know very well the story of our friend @Apollo-Soyuz, who is very disappointed with the fact that his watch has never been recognized by Omega as an official Apollo Soyuz one. To be honest, I don't remember whether he bought it new from an Italian dealer in the 70s or as a second hand watch later. But it doesn't have any importance at this stage.
My first statement is that I really understand his position... That's pretty fair: he bought a watch, being convinced that it was a 'standard' Apollo Soyuz model. Or better: he couldn't imagine that years after, someone, or something or ... who knows ... would have stated that this watch was not 'correct'. Trying to demonstrate that his watch is correct is nothing but a very natural reaction to this kind of situation.
But that is not reality.
First of all, I think that @Apollo-Soyuz is not updated with some information:
- Brandon Thomas is not the Director of the Omega Museum anymore, he left many years ago and has been replaced by Petros Protopapas.
- We all know that the Hartmann or Maddox tables are not correct. Those guys have done a huge work (and we all have to be very grateful for that... they just open the doors of our passion!) but it has been done many years ago and since that period we have been able to complete those data and to build up more reliable information. So please, with full respect for the work done, don't consider those tables anymore.
Going back to the De Marchi story, some information are correct, but some are not. It is true that Omega had an important agreement with the Italian family-owned De Marchi company in Turin. It was in fact a broad agreement whose main objective was the exclusive distribution of Omega watches in Italy. And it is true to say that this agreement provided for some other activity, like the local production of some accessories, or eventually the assembly of some watches. We know that De Marchi had an important activity on Omega Dynamics for instance. And we are touching here the real problem of the story.
You have 2 opposite ways of seeing things:
1) The De Marchi situation: I am quite comfortable in saying that both the period (1970s) and the country (Italy) are not synonymous with precise procedures and clear organizations... Just for those who don't know: I've been living and working in Italy for more than 20 years now, and I love this country and Italian people, no doubt about that. They are extremely efficient and smart in almost everything. But maybe such an agreement was not precise enough, and De Marchi had some room to be ... let's say ... more creative than expected.
2) From the Omega stand point, it is obvious that any local initiative from De Marchi that was not fully authorized and documented by the HQ in Biel can not be considered as a 'factory' product. That is 100% normal, logical and justified.
We have worked a lot on all Speedmasters series for the Moonwatch Only book, in collaboration with the museum and the archives, and here are the results of our research:
- It is commonly accepted that Omega produced 500 pieces of the Apollo-Soyuz series. Actually we found just 400 watches, invoiced to De Marchi (and listed as 'Apollo Soyuz' on the documents). All these 400 watches in the delivery invoices have movement numbers between 39.180. xxx and 39.181.xxx. Full stop.
- You have to know that the Apollo Soyuz model was anything but a success in 1976. For a simple reason: Italian collectors didn't like the fact that there was no 'Speedmaster' inscription on the dial... That could be a reason why Omega, who initially wanted to produce 500 watches, finally decided to sell only 400.
- For some reason, at some point, Omega may have sent Apollo Soyuz spare parts to De Marchi. That's pretty sure. But nobody knows if it was for a local production in Turin by De Marchi or not. Again, there were much less quality controls and procedures at that time, and it could be that Omega (or their suppliers), who had already manufactured dials, pushers, casebacks for let's say 500 watches, decided to send everything to De Marchi just in case Italian customers would need to change some part during a service. Anyway, the Apollo Soyuz model was only for the Italian market, so there was no need to keep the parts in Biel... Just think about it... Nothing special...
- The spare movements that have been sent by Omega to De Marchi are not listed as 'Apollo Soyuz'. Never. We have audited all the invoices during a very broad period of time in order to find some 'Apollo Soyuz' movements sent to Italy. There are not. Full stop. In particular, we have identified the serial numbers that are mentioned by our friend @Apollo-Soyuz on the invoices, and they are listed as standard 861 movements, nothing more.
- We know that after a first negative impact on the market, Italian people started to like the model and to buy it. And that could be the explanation of the problem...: 400 models sold out, and De Marchi decided to assembly other watches, just because they had the spare parts! Again, just think about it: nothing special...
- Well, that's not 100% true. Nothing special for De Marchi, because the Omega agreement was not restrictive enough and (theoretically) allowed them to assembly something locally. But maybe Omega didn't authorize this activity (or even didn't know it) for these Apollo Soyuz 'local' pieces. Who knows? De Marchi doesn't exist anymore and Omega has no evidence of such authorizations.
Conclusion
The only official Apollo Soyuz models are the factory ones. There is absolutely no doubt about it. And they are all in the 39.180. xxx and 39.181.xxx range.
The other watches have not been produced by Omega. This is absolutely certain, and this is a very fair reason to consider that they are not official and that they can not be recognized as official by Omega. They are the result of a local production, authorized or not (but at this stage there are no proof of any authorization, ..., or better: the only concrete information tell us that just spare parts and in particular standard 861 movements have been sent to De Marchi in Italy, nothing more).
Again, I fully understand the disappointment of a customer who brought the watch by an Italian dealer at that time, convinced to buy a factory watch (and probably the dealer didn't know anything about this story), and who realized years after that his watch is not recognized by the brand. I'm sorry for that. Bad luck. But that is just reality. There is no way, in my opinion, that Omega can consider these watches as original. The problem is not Omega. It is De Marchi.
Hope this explanation will be useful. Thanks for reading.
PS: I didn't talk about the watches sold during Omegamania by Antiquorum... just because there is nothing say... 😉
How fascinating and yet how improbable...I am a huge admirer of your scholarship and the depth of independent corroboration you have sought perparing your book but this speculation and conjecture about custom and practice in Italy does not accord IMHO with your usual methodology
Just to show how fallacious you argument is I will point to the controversy surrounding the speed master 125 ! And the ludicrous assertion that this was and I quote ‘limited to 2000 unnumbered example ‘ page 518 in MWO
So by analogy Omega made shall we say 18,000 full sets of spare parts but decided they only wanted to sell 2000 because of poor demand low sales ,the wind direction over the alps whatever , they then issued 2000 of 1041 cosc certified watches
But someone mysteriously went and issued another 16,000 cosc certified watches [behind Omegas back and we know this because Omega doesn’t have the records ?]
With respect , Firstly MWO is wrong because THEY ARE NOT UNNUMBERED the early issues are alphanumeric numbered
...secondly the unnumbered ones are probably in the order of 16,000 !! And if you want a cogent reasoned argument supporting this backed up by hard numbers and logic I suggest you go look at the caliber 1040 web written by Andy K a very well respected and learned forum member and a person who I believe you know
So here we have a directly comparable set of circumstances with massively larger numbers involving external cosc certificates for over 16,000 guesstimate Watches which any forum member will attest as being the likely number in existence which you /Omega can’t trace ...and this has nothing to do with Italy
And I am only just getting warmed up here ....You are expecting The forum to believe that Omega changed their mind over the production of 100 watches ....highly improbable and not only that that these watches were produced unlawfully outside of the agreement and with no Omega knowledge and they haven’t got the paperwork to validate this and here’s the kicker ..it wasn’t a product that Omega decided to make ! By all accounts these were made following demand by the distributor
And this is where we end up with the crucial admission and the defeat of the entire line of argument IMHO
WHERE IS THE PAPERWORK FOR THE OTHER 100 ?
You only found 400 Watches let’s repeat that ...the entire paperwork in respect of those other 100 watches has disappeared ....and yet you accept they were made, and you guessed they were delivered ,and you speculate they were from spare parts ,and you theorise there was a because of down turn in demand ,and you hypothesised this was turned into an unauthorised batch and despite the dozens of Limited edition watches that went to Italy this is the one that Dimarchi chose to cheat on putting at risk their entire distribution agreement which must be worth millions of pounds for 100 watches
And at no time did Omega issue a cease-and-desist letter they just let them get on with it ....your dismissive phrase ‘nothing special’ is astonishing in its naivety....
Why in the entire history of a storied brand like Omega has this type of infringement never happened/discovered before before particularly with distributors in places that are significantly less lawful than Italy
This unsupported conjecture is attempting to justify a negative ie that Omega never authorised this production yet miraculously it happened with the distributor having all the parts necessary and putting their entire reputation and business at risk for 100 watches
It’s based on the fact that you didn’t find all the Omega paperwork
and yet I have demonstrated by analogy that at the same time Omega were churning out well over 16,000 commerative limited edition Certified Chronometers which seem to have no paperwork either
So I think we now need to revisit your phrase about factory produced Soyuz ?? Your claim proprietorship based on a hugely common movement 145.-022 ...
with respect the watch is defined by its dial, its caseback it’s case band ,and possibly its pushers ,particularly when it’s a limited edition
and amazingly di Marchi had all those and 100 full and complete 145.022 movements laying around ....and where’s the paper work for that batch of movements ......which presumably they got from Omega, all factory produced ...so in essence all 500 Watches were factory produced the bit that’s missing is that dimarchi made up all the watches they were given and maybe the simple explanation is that Omega just lost the paperwork showing what the last 100 were used for
You have produced a 562 page canon of work in MWO which is astonishing in its depth and breadth but isn’t it possible that maybe in its compilation just maybe you, or Omega , made a mistake and there is a more realistic explanation than the far fetched version presented ...the law of parsimony..occams razor and all that
In medicine it is taught that when you hear hooves think horse not Zebras
Please accept this reply is delivered with the greatest respect and admiration in the spirit of furthering understanding and debate
,
- Posts
- 50
- Likes
- 405
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...
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...
- Posts
- 7
- Likes
- 1
rolexowner
·First time I see this watch, so nice, i just love it,
- Posts
- 461
- Likes
- 353
TsoloT
·Well firstly thank you for your speedy response and I take the point that maybe this issues could have been more concisely explained
And so I will crave your permission use the Law as the benchmark and discuss this reference to the so called burden of proof
There are 500 Omega Soyuz watches in existence ...a matter without dispute ...incontrovertible
You can’t find all or any records for authorised production of 100 of them ...that does not mean they did not exist ..you just can’t find them...again incontrovertible
You found 400 invoiced full Watches but cant find the paperwork for 100 part sets or spare parts as you claim
There are other watches that have been produced in huge numbers where again you can’t find the paperwork ...clearly indicates a prior behaviour /practice
It is very unlikely that Di marchi would put their distribution agreement at risk for 100 Watches , and in addition they clearly had all the parts and they clearly came from you
You have the burden of proof to show you did not authorise them , unfortunately not only do you not have the paperwork it can be shown that this is a prior behaviour or practice in other cases and then there is the effluxion of time .
Neither you nor I were there , we cannot therefore attest to circumstances , and you haven’t made your case and you haven’t discharged the burden
And this is where you run into much bigger problems ....Di marchi are your agents in Italy and so have ostensible authority to carry out all acts
in the distribution ,construction ,and sales of Omega Watches in the Italian market providing those acts are clearly to the benefit of Omega
You cannot and have not proven to the public at large that your agent has acted unlawfully you do not have documentation to support prohibition of the construction of the Soyuz watch you merely have a list of 400 movements sent of the 500 in total
You are bound in law by the act of your agent, and in good conscience ,and as a matter of law, you should accept and acknowledge the act as being authorised ex post facto ,specifically as the innocent purchaser relying upon the good name of Omega ,has been harmed by what is effectively their employee
Yet again this explanation tendered in the spirit of respect and acknowledgement of your empirical knowledge about Watches
I am undoubtedly less provisioned in watch research than your good selves but I the matters adverted to above I am slightly better informed
as I was a former adjunct visiting Professor of International Law and unsurprisingly familiar with this type of issue
Kind regards
And so I will crave your permission use the Law as the benchmark and discuss this reference to the so called burden of proof
There are 500 Omega Soyuz watches in existence ...a matter without dispute ...incontrovertible
You can’t find all or any records for authorised production of 100 of them ...that does not mean they did not exist ..you just can’t find them...again incontrovertible
You found 400 invoiced full Watches but cant find the paperwork for 100 part sets or spare parts as you claim
There are other watches that have been produced in huge numbers where again you can’t find the paperwork ...clearly indicates a prior behaviour /practice
It is very unlikely that Di marchi would put their distribution agreement at risk for 100 Watches , and in addition they clearly had all the parts and they clearly came from you
You have the burden of proof to show you did not authorise them , unfortunately not only do you not have the paperwork it can be shown that this is a prior behaviour or practice in other cases and then there is the effluxion of time .
Neither you nor I were there , we cannot therefore attest to circumstances , and you haven’t made your case and you haven’t discharged the burden
And this is where you run into much bigger problems ....Di marchi are your agents in Italy and so have ostensible authority to carry out all acts
in the distribution ,construction ,and sales of Omega Watches in the Italian market providing those acts are clearly to the benefit of Omega
You cannot and have not proven to the public at large that your agent has acted unlawfully you do not have documentation to support prohibition of the construction of the Soyuz watch you merely have a list of 400 movements sent of the 500 in total
You are bound in law by the act of your agent, and in good conscience ,and as a matter of law, you should accept and acknowledge the act as being authorised ex post facto ,specifically as the innocent purchaser relying upon the good name of Omega ,has been harmed by what is effectively their employee
Yet again this explanation tendered in the spirit of respect and acknowledgement of your empirical knowledge about Watches
I am undoubtedly less provisioned in watch research than your good selves but I the matters adverted to above I am slightly better informed
as I was a former adjunct visiting Professor of International Law and unsurprisingly familiar with this type of issue
Kind regards
- Posts
- 1,294
- Likes
- 2,291
jhross98
·i am by no means an expert on this. . .but if it wasn't assembled by omega than it wasn't assembled by omega
that said, there are lots of examples of watches put together after the fact. . .loose dials floating around. . .etc. in this case maybe it was assembled by their distributor in Italy. seems like more a gray area and certainly a lot closer than, say, someone buying loose dials decades after the fact and assembling watches. these are super rare it probably is still worth a big chunk of the value if everything else about the watch is correct
but no amount of legal mumbo jumbo will make it one of the watches that was assembled by omega
that said, there are lots of examples of watches put together after the fact. . .loose dials floating around. . .etc. in this case maybe it was assembled by their distributor in Italy. seems like more a gray area and certainly a lot closer than, say, someone buying loose dials decades after the fact and assembling watches. these are super rare it probably is still worth a big chunk of the value if everything else about the watch is correct
but no amount of legal mumbo jumbo will make it one of the watches that was assembled by omega
- Posts
- 461
- Likes
- 353
TsoloT
·With respect None of the Watches were assembled by Omega !!! That’s the point
- Posts
- 1,294
- Likes
- 2,291
jhross98
·ok then i am officially confused. darn cool watch though. happy turkey day!
👍👎😉
👍👎😉
- Posts
- 178
- Likes
- 135
Apollo-Soyuz
·[
dear Lowen,
I confirm that this is an OMEGA error
Wowww ...
Seems I have wasted my time writing a detailed answer ... since you insist talking about an Omega mistake.
There is no Omega mistake at all.
I am very sorry I was not clear enough.
dear Lowen,
I confirm that this is an OMEGA error
- Posts
- 1,560
- Likes
- 4,418
MaiLollo
·I have no insider information on this matter whatsoever, I'm just a guy that doesn't understand one thing: how is it possible that most of these watches have very close movement numbers (around 39.1m, right ?) whilst others have very disparate movement numbers (31m, 45m, etc...) ?
Does someone know if all of the 400 watches had 39.1m movements ?
I don't own a Soyuz, but if I were to buy one, I'm sure I would buy one with a 39.1m...
Does someone know if all of the 400 watches had 39.1m movements ?
I don't own a Soyuz, but if I were to buy one, I'm sure I would buy one with a 39.1m...
- Posts
- 17,585
- Likes
- 26,671
Foo2rama
··Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can.@TsoloT
That watch in your picture appears to show the white halo tell tale of a sapphire crystal, not something you would expect on a watch of that time.
@Apollo-Soyuz
Yes, your watch could have been made with all correct parts in Italy, the issue is it’s falls outside the invoice of the 400 known.
I think your missing the point, it’s possible but there is at this time no way to verify. One way to do this would be to find box and papers for one that falls outside the known range.
As for Omega having to take legal action if a distributor did something like this... no they wouldn’t, they would have noted it if they knew, and brought it up, no reason to trash a relationship over 100 watches. More like don’t do this again... greay area blah blah.
That watch in your picture appears to show the white halo tell tale of a sapphire crystal, not something you would expect on a watch of that time.
@Apollo-Soyuz
Yes, your watch could have been made with all correct parts in Italy, the issue is it’s falls outside the invoice of the 400 known.
I think your missing the point, it’s possible but there is at this time no way to verify. One way to do this would be to find box and papers for one that falls outside the known range.
As for Omega having to take legal action if a distributor did something like this... no they wouldn’t, they would have noted it if they knew, and brought it up, no reason to trash a relationship over 100 watches. More like don’t do this again... greay area blah blah.
- Posts
- 147
- Likes
- 63
SwissZ
·I have no insider information on this matter whatsoever, I'm just a guy that doesn't understand one thing: how is it possible that most of these watches have very close movement numbers (around 39.1m, right ?) whilst others have very disparate movement numbers (31m, 45m, etc...) ?
Service parts! It's that easy. No conspiracy hiding the truth or whatever 😀
Think of vintage watchco 😀 Genuine Omega service parts
- Posts
- 1,560
- Likes
- 4,418
- Posts
- 461
- Likes
- 353
TsoloT
·@TsoloT
That watch in your picture appears to show the white halo tell tale of a sapphire crystal, not something you would expect on a watch of that time.
@Apollo-Soyuz
Yes, your watch could have been made with all correct parts in Italy, the issue is it’s falls outside the invoice of the 400 known.
I think your missing the point, it’s possible but there is at this time no way to verify. One way to do this would be to find box and papers for one that falls outside the known range.
As for Omega having to take legal action if a distributor did something like this... no they wouldn’t, they would have noted it if they knew, and brought it up, no reason to trash a relationship over 100 watches. More like don’t do this again... greay area blah blah.
- Posts
- 461
- Likes
- 353
TsoloT
·I wouldn't go there so fast, but that's what I'm thinking... But I still don't get if the 400 where assembled by Omega or not.
Service parts! It's that easy. No conspiracy hiding the truth or whatever 😀
Think of vintage watchco 😀 Genuine Omega service parts
- Posts
- 178
- Likes
- 135
Apollo-Soyuz
·“are not synonymous with precise procedures and clear organizations”
“They are extremely efficient and smart in almost everything”
apart from this statement not too good for Italians ...
I ask permission to reply:
Confessing that OMEGA entrusted their production to a local agent, I believe it is OMEGA duty to intervene in order to catalog these watches and not just leaving everything to chance.
all Apollo-Soyuz have been assembled and sold by the De Marchi Brothers for the Italian market.
Mr Brandon wrote to me: “We have no proof that your watch is one of them”
the Volkswagen builds the “Polo” cars in Brazil and sells this car all over the world. The owner, in case of "serious problems", will always refer to the Volkswagen or at car dealer?
the first to not be accurate and to prove to be little organized in my opinion it is OMEGA. entrusting the De marchi brothers the complete freedom to do what they wanted with the OMEGA brand this is the cause of this problem.
“- It is commonly accepted that Omega produced 500 pieces of the Apollo-Soyuz series. Actually we found just 400 watches, invoiced to De Marchi (and listed as 'Apollo Soyuz' on the documents). All these 400 watches in the delivery invoices have movement numbers between 39.180. xxx and 39.181.xxx “
This in not Correct! all invoiced to De-Marchi indicate the term only "Apollo" and not Apollo-Soyuz
, I have the documents!
In the specific case of this watch, it is useless to ask the extract from the archive, because it is authentic to the sequence number indicated outside of the bottom (bottoms were all numbered)
the European Official Journal contains some details about the local collaboration concerning that period stating that:
Translation:
The general agents Demarchi and Uhren-Handelsgesellschaft are shown to manufacture bracelet watch models and to perform the OMEGA brand watch movements
This is the proof that, only few movements of Apollo-Soyuz watches, have been cataloged like this, for the simple reason that the assembly was done in Italy.
OMEGA is the sole responsible and there are no justifications. the agreement in quegl years has been signed by OMEGA and Demarchi
apologize for the bad English ...
Mr. Lowen, do you speak Italian?
I would like to talk to you about this Apollo-soyuz watch. if this is possible ...
“They are extremely efficient and smart in almost everything”
apart from this statement not too good for Italians ...
I ask permission to reply:
Confessing that OMEGA entrusted their production to a local agent, I believe it is OMEGA duty to intervene in order to catalog these watches and not just leaving everything to chance.
all Apollo-Soyuz have been assembled and sold by the De Marchi Brothers for the Italian market.
Mr Brandon wrote to me: “We have no proof that your watch is one of them”
the Volkswagen builds the “Polo” cars in Brazil and sells this car all over the world. The owner, in case of "serious problems", will always refer to the Volkswagen or at car dealer?
the first to not be accurate and to prove to be little organized in my opinion it is OMEGA. entrusting the De marchi brothers the complete freedom to do what they wanted with the OMEGA brand this is the cause of this problem.
“- It is commonly accepted that Omega produced 500 pieces of the Apollo-Soyuz series. Actually we found just 400 watches, invoiced to De Marchi (and listed as 'Apollo Soyuz' on the documents). All these 400 watches in the delivery invoices have movement numbers between 39.180. xxx and 39.181.xxx “
This in not Correct! all invoiced to De-Marchi indicate the term only "Apollo" and not Apollo-Soyuz
, I have the documents!
In the specific case of this watch, it is useless to ask the extract from the archive, because it is authentic to the sequence number indicated outside of the bottom (bottoms were all numbered)
the European Official Journal contains some details about the local collaboration concerning that period stating that:
Translation:
The general agents Demarchi and Uhren-Handelsgesellschaft are shown to manufacture bracelet watch models and to perform the OMEGA brand watch movements
This is the proof that, only few movements of Apollo-Soyuz watches, have been cataloged like this, for the simple reason that the assembly was done in Italy.
OMEGA is the sole responsible and there are no justifications. the agreement in quegl years has been signed by OMEGA and Demarchi
apologize for the bad English ...
Mr. Lowen, do you speak Italian?
I would like to talk to you about this Apollo-soyuz watch. if this is possible ...
- Posts
- 178
- Likes
- 135
Apollo-Soyuz
·I have no insider information on this matter whatsoever, I'm just a guy that doesn't understand one thing: how is it possible that most of these watches have very close movement numbers (around 39.1m, right ?) whilst others have very disparate movement numbers (31m, 45m, etc...) ?
Does someone know if all of the 400 watches had 39.1m movements ?
I don't own a Soyuz, but if I were to buy one, I'm sure I would buy one with a 39.1m...
instead 40 years ago my dad purchased an Apollo-Soyuz at the dealer of Bologna and in those days nobody had talked to him about the issue of serial numbers ...
- Posts
- 178
- Likes
- 135
Apollo-Soyuz
·Not a sapphire it’s the light that’s being used and there is a point that’s being missed ....where’s the money ...surely a watch sold as a watch gives Omega a higher yield than just parts
stop!
my watch is authentic and the glass is exalite and not sapphire!
for OMEGA CH the box and warranty do not feel anything, unfortunately! the problem is the serial number! I have the sales invoice and delivery from Omega to De-Marchi, is it enough?
I repeat:
these were the agreements FIRMED between De-Marchi and Omega
The general agents Demarchi and Uhren-Handelsgesellschaft are shown to manufacture bracelet watch models and to perform the OMEGA brand watch movements
- Posts
- 178
- Likes
- 135
Apollo-Soyuz
·I have a lot of information about this watch ... and I've had a lot of work on it
to this discussion I add this "pearl" of Mr. Brandon to one of the dozens of e-mails exchanged with him
now, do you understand?
to this discussion I add this "pearl" of Mr. Brandon to one of the dozens of e-mails exchanged with him
now, do you understand?
- Posts
- 461
- Likes
- 353
TsoloT
·“are not synonymous with precise procedures and clear organizations”
“They are extremely efficient and smart in almost everything”
apart from this statement not too good for Italians ...
I ask permission to reply:
Confessing that OMEGA entrusted their production to a local agent, I believe it is OMEGA duty to intervene in order to catalog these watches and not just leaving everything to chance.
all Apollo-Soyuz have been assembled and sold by the De Marchi Brothers for the Italian market.
Mr Brandon wrote to me: “We have no proof that your watch is one of them”
the Volkswagen builds the “Polo” cars in Brazil and sells this car all over the world. The owner, in case of "serious problems", will always refer to the Volkswagen or at car dealer?
the first to not be accurate and to prove to be little organized in my opinion it is OMEGA. entrusting the De marchi brothers the complete freedom to do what they wanted with the OMEGA brand this is the cause of this problem.
“- It is commonly accepted that Omega produced 500 pieces of the Apollo-Soyuz series. Actually we found just 400 watches, invoiced to De Marchi (and listed as 'Apollo Soyuz' on the documents). All these 400 watches in the delivery invoices have movement numbers between 39.180. xxx and 39.181.xxx “
This in not Correct! all invoiced to De-Marchi indicate the term only "Apollo" and not Apollo-Soyuz
, I have the documents!
In the specific case of this watch, it is useless to ask the extract from the archive, because it is authentic to the sequence number indicated outside of the bottom (bottoms were all numbered)
the European Official Journal contains some details about the local collaboration concerning that period stating that:
Translation:
The general agents Demarchi and Uhren-Handelsgesellschaft are shown to manufacture bracelet watch models and to perform the OMEGA brand watch movements
This is the proof that, only few movements of Apollo-Soyuz watches, have been cataloged like this, for the simple reason that the assembly was done in Italy.
OMEGA is the sole responsible and there are no justifications. the agreement in quegl years has been signed by OMEGA and Demarchi
apologize for the bad English ...
Mr. Lowen, do you speak Italian?
I would like to talk to you about this Apollo-soyuz watch. if this is possible ...
I have a lot of information about this watch ... and I've had a lot of work on it
to this discussion I add this "pearl" of Mr. Brandon to one of the dozens of e-mails exchanged with him
now, do you understand?
