in 2012 I had already begun cataloging the Apollo-Soyuz in all sincerity, not all current holders of this watch believe in my own initiative and especially I also need to check, through the Omega registers, if the person I have before it is sincere and that the watch has not been assembled a few months ago. the census should start from Omega or in any case by a very experienced person who is also able to give value to it.

 

According to @lowen the 400 pieces were assembled by Omega, in their factory.

 

to prevent someone from accusing me of being vague or repeating the same concept, I will publish that e-mail tomorrow by Mr. Brandon of the Omega Museum where he explains this concept ...

It is obvious that a part of Apollo-Soyuz was produced by Omega Ch and another by the DeMarchi brothers but it is crucial not to forget that behind c was an agreement signed by both. The DeMarchi Brothers could assemble Omega watches, This was allowed and written in the chords!

 

Then share it.

I am sure the community will appraise the work you have commenced and will help participating in collecting and collating as much data as possible so we can elaborate more on the subject.

 

Dear all,

Sorry for coming so late in this thread...

A lot has already been said about this, but what I would like to add is:

1. With Anthony we are always open to get new information, not everything is always 100% accurate, that's why we clearly indicate in MWO that this is an unfinished research project and that's why we tried to improve in the second edition and will do so if we publish other editions in the future

2. We spent days at OMEGA to search for invoices, even several years after 1976 in order not to miss late production. The only we got were:
200x delivered on 12 April 1976,
170x delivered on 3 May 1976,
20x delivered on 11 May 1976,
10x delivered on 5 July 1976.
All of these 400 "official" are between 39.180.860 and 39.181.389

3. The "unofficial" others we are aware of are in the serial 31, 32.2, 32.8, 39.9 and 45.5 millions. Some of the "early" were delivered in June 1975 already, BEFORE the Apollo-Soyuz mission itself. Don't speak about the late, that's total stupidity by Omegamania, no coherence with date and country.

Facts:
1. the batch of 400 "official" is clearly indicated "Apollo" in the invoices, is in a coherent grouped batch and delivered in 4 batches between April and July 1976.

2. the few examples with early s/n were originally sent as regular 145.022 before A-S mission. Then probably reshaped as A-S when de Marchi asked for / received spare parts.

3. We have not observed any limited serie (LS) number >400 in the official batch, and only number 461 in the "unofficial" ones. Please send us information if you have more about the LS numbers

In conclusion, we think that:
1. there were only 400 "official" models recorded by OMEGA
2. all others are the result of De Marchi, using movements (and possibly sometimes cases) from regular 145.022, some (if not all) dating before the A-S mission.
3. the engraving "I xxx Ω" was made by De Marchi (quality is so different from what OMEGA did), the reason why there is no info at the OMEGA archives and possibly why the only number >400 is with an "unofficial" example. But we might be wrong, only supposition at this point.

Last point regarding the original actors of this story: there were errors on all sides.

1. If De Marchi decided to create an additional batch of A-S after the official ones, he should have informed OMEGA. Using movements from classical 145.022 would be called today "frankenwatch" in some situations. If we can find out official information from OMEGA or from De Marchi about an additional 100 or so examples, we would be pleased to integrate it in our research.

2. OMEGA, by associating with Omegamania, made an error by letting too many wrong watches to be sold, among them uncoherent A-S models.

As written at the beginning of my message, we are always keen with new information to make knowledge progress, so please do not hesitate to contact us.

PS. forget what Brandon told you, he is not with OMEGA since many years and things have changed since

 

Good morning, I can not forget what Mr Brandon wrote to me because he was Omega and it is not that if the manager changes the rules ...

 

40 years ago 400 or maybe 500 Italian customers bought in Omega stores one or more Apollo-Soyuz watches. The shops were shops with the Omega sign, the watches were accompanied by an Omega box and an Omega warranty.

In the year 2000, Omega reminded the world that in the 1970s (commercialization began in 1976) a series of very limited Omega watches (500 pieces) was produced. these watches had certain features including the serial number of the movement that had to be comprised between the following numbers 39.180.000 E 39.181.000.

According to you, holders of Apollo-Soyuz are clocked to check if the clock movement was what Omega declared?

Nobody!

No one could imagine such a thing!
This was a real Omega lottery; some customers have been luckier than others or more unlucky. One united thing unlucky and lucky customers, both turned to an official Omega dealer. Does this all seem to you normal?

In the VW Dieselgate scandal, the driver was not the car dealer, but the VW itself.

If the headquarter, of any company in the world, chooses to take a certain road, it is obvious that if and why it will have to take all the consequences!

Now, almost 42 years after the birth of this Omega watch, it's time to give it a name and an identity.

The "Apollo-Soyuz out of range" can no longer pretend not to exist, they are legitimate sons of Omega.

Omega Ch has the duty of cataloging the Apollo-Soyuz, finally combining the serial number engraved on the back of the watch with the movement.

 

This thread has made for interesting reading and most of us enjoy a good controversy. However, it's now high time you 'let it go' - the debate, here at least, has been exhausted, and, for your own sake, acceptance of a situation is usually necessary so that you can devote your energies to something more positive. The negativity you are currently demonstrating with your posts can't be good for anyone and I think it especially unfortunate that you have been calling into doubt the highly informed and considerate posts made by the Moonwatch Only authors. I also feel that your complaints about Omega as a manufacturing house are misplaced - I believe the firm to be of great integrity and I'm sure it would not wish knowingly to disadvantage any customer. As someone who worked for several decades in automotive manufacturing I can confirm that production issues are not always clear cut and record keeping standards - especially from when there was a mix of paper and early I.T. methodologies - may not always allow for absolute certainties to be established. Why not just enjoy the look and feel of an excellent version of the Speedmaster?

 

I agree that this thread has reached the point of going so far as it can without further concrete evidence but I don t think the MWO authors have proved their argument one way or the other. What they have done is state their position based on their knowledge as has the OP. Both sides have made their points neither side are, at this point, able to prove the full facts behind this saga.
Hopefully someone will come up with irrfutable evidence to support their argument. There are some things that seem amiss, such as the possibility that only 400 were made but 500 commissoned. If DiMarchi were sent 100 dials that were meant for spares surely someone at omega would have known about it and said something. What happeded if someone needed a new dial?
It seems strange that 100 watches were made by DiMarchi without permission and sold by authorised dealers and nobody raised an eyebrow.
It's an interesting thread and, as said hopefully someone will get to the bottom of it.

 

Interesting topic, in summary: not everything is always 100% accurate

Something I recently read online: Omega changed the EoA Extract of the Archives text for the Professional 125 (1973)
http://www.calibre1040.com/looks-like-omega-changed-their-stance-on-the-speedmaster-125/

About time Omega conducts an accelerated effort to update/correct their legacy information... I'm sure a lot of volunteers are willing to help!

 

It is threads like this which make this such an interesting and informative forum. I don't have an Apollo-Soyuz LE ("authorised" or otherwse) and It's highly unlikley that I'll ever even set eyes on one, but the passion and dedication shown by all parties makes for a great read. Separating the facts from the conjecture isn't always easy, but I was wondering: did Omega keep records of the notional 100 "spare" A-S dials that were delivered to Italy? Did they routinely keep ANY records of the spare parts (eg movements) that were supplied to their subcontractors? It strikes me that it would be interesting if some of those movement numbers could be matched to some of the "missing" 100 watches...

 

Also, I don't think it is entirely fair to compare the Lemania-assembled 321s from the early 60s to the supposed DiMarchi-assembled 100 A-S watches. Presumably Lemania were specifically subcontracted to assemble "standard" Speedmasters, but no-one has produced any hard evidence that DiMarchi were specifically subcontracted to assemble 100 A-S Limited Editions. (I know that the word "modify" has been mentioned but the interpretation/translation of that word could be open to debate.)

 

As a collector, I am not going to buy an A-S if it does not have an extract, 5.5mm pushers and the dial and caseback, (and indeed bracelet).

You can say what you like but if it doesn’t have those, my hand stays in my pocket.

 

I've enjoyed the further comments and maybe I was wrong to say the debate was exhausted! I also now realise that my previous post could have given the impression that I didn't empathise with Apollo-Soyuz, but I certainly do, and I admire people who stick to their beliefs: I just wondered if maybe A-S could be depleting his energy reserves on a 'lost cause.' One reason it could be a lost cause is the question of national-characteristic business standards. I worked for many years for a famous Italian car maker and loved the company and most of the people at the factory, so I mean this as in no way disrespectful, but they got up to some devious strokes at times, indulged in dodgy record-keeping and were generally chaotic in their conduct of business. From this distance in time I suspect that it will be impossible to 'prove' what really happened and I'm sorry if this makes A-S feel disadvantaged, but for the rest of us these sort of grey areas add a lot to the mystique/allure of a collecting hobby.

 

I don’t agree at all with the idea that at a certain point OMEGA sent to Maison Demarchi all the unsold parts of the Apollo Soyuz. It’s higly probably that in that way OMEGA CH would induce the production of a parallel series of this model. Even more limited than the official Omega CH.

What would have been the purpose of that?

Risking to compromise the reputation of OMEGA and the all commercial operation?
Anyway, regarding that shipping of spare parts there are no evidence nor documents to confirm the thesis.

I personally have doubt also about the other theories. For which reason should OMEGA continued to produce and send the accessories to Maison De Marchi?

Specifically I’m referring to:

• 100 wristbands 1168
• 100 case back
• 100 dials
• 200 buttons 5,5 mm
• 100 boxes

Considering also that part of the Italian buyers manifested immediately a lack of interest in this model, and on the other side Omega CH decided to cut down the production, stopping at 400 pcs instead of 500.
I’m sorry but it has no sense at all.

After years of research and insights on this story, that is my personal version of the events:

It was Maison De Marchi in Turin to approach Omega CH to realize an Omega watch only for the Italian market. The new space mission was a perfect event to link to that idea.
Some Omega’s dealership at the time, some of them still open, remember that the Omega Apollo–Soyuz watches were already in the shops during the space mission USA–URSS in July 17th 1975.

My watch were bought in that period and the movements number of Apollo – Soyuz that I catalogued are before to the one declared by Omega (39.180.000 – 39.181.000). and strangely those movements are really closed to the others:

31.316.xxx (mine!)
32.208.1xx
32.208.2xx
32.856.XXX
32.857.XXX
32.859.4XX
32.859.6xx

These OMEGA Pre-Apollo-Soyuz were presented to the Italian market BEFORE the official OMEGA production.

Thereafter, between April and July 1976, were open and closed the supply of the officially Omega Apollo- Soyuz to Maison DeMarchi. Between 1980 and 1981, the official Apollo-Soyuz disappeared from the windows of the dealership OMEGA.

It’s feasible that, when that production came in the void, Maison De Marchi really found out to have a couple of spare parts for the Apollo-Soyuz model. It’s highly probable that in this occasion Maison DeMarchi could have thought to create some (2 or 3 pcs) frankenwatch Apollo-Soyuz-DeMarchi but those, differently to the ones I listed before, have movements higher than the range declared by Omega CH. For example 39.927.934 e 45.585.460…

 

I’m confused your now saying the hundred with later and non grouped serial numbers were released first?

I also ask again if any of the 100 have ever been found with box and papers?

 

Agreed

 

I think all those who are interested in this should go back to this thread:
https://omegaforums.net/threads/apollo-soyuz-1975.7670/page-2

especially this summary from @BASE1000 including the original texts relied upon in arguments above:

Unfortunatels the known correspondence between the italian collector and Mr. Brandon Thomas from the Museum, which I have read, is not too fertil and not logic in all aspects of this interesting matter. Mr. Thomas does not explain the different description of the matter in Richon's book. However he reveals, that the Omega records (which acutally are not more but this 'factures' that you kindly have attached in your post above) do not even say anything about the engraved consecutive numbers from the casebacks of each watch. With other words, Omega even can not confirm which movement belongs to which number of the 500. Knowing this, all older 'Extract of Archivs', that Omega issued in former times matching an engraved number with a special movement number are obsolet from todays point of view. Omega in fact does and did not know more than: "montre acier inox Apollo" beeing delivered to De Marchi in April 1976.

Mr Thomas from the Museum wrote a very interesting phrase to that italian collector, which might be a key to the puzzle:

The problem, as I see it, is that a part of the collector’s community, of which I am one, often applies current practice to historic products. In the case of your watch it clearly is not a “fake” and at the same time is not part of the limited series made in Bienne. If one were to accept that our agent made a parallel limited series and/or was the instigator of the series converting watches and later ordering them directly from the factory, this is hypothesis however on I feel is the likely answer to the riddle, one would see that the watch in your position has an additional historic value over the standard Speedmaster Professional. If we take as fact the all known Apollo Soyuz watches delivered by OMEGA S.A were delivered in late 1975-1976 it is easy to see that your watch predates these pieces, by accepting this possibility and not looking for someone to blame and or a guilty party, one could possibly “re-write” the history of this most important watch, the first “Patch” watch and show that it was the unique Italian take on esthetics and love of watches which was the genesis of this type of limited edition. This has happened with other pieces where local production or demand became the basis for standard production watches which went on to become icons.
De Marchi was the insistigator of the limited edition! This might makes sense when looking to the delivery date in summer 1975, when the hype of the Apollo-Soyuz project was on its peak (the mission took place from 15th July to 24th July 1975). Omega delivered in 1976. However it does not perfectly explain that every De Marchi Soyuz seems to have one of consecutive numbers that never ever have shown up twice and that are not especially early ones....

Last sentence of Mr Thomas is:

Other than the above suggestion I cannot be of more help, it is simply a fact that we will never be able to say that your watch [remark: the one of the italian collector] is an OMEGA S.A Apollo Soyuz, however within certain confines which are in place such as the extract system we can help you and other collectors to come to informed decisions as to the authenticity of a “De Marchi” Soyuz.
Interesting but still no explanation for the consecutiv and never doubled numbers on all (!) known Apollo Soyuz Watches (Only in the book of Richon the picture looks like there is no engravement. However it might only be faded as in many cases).

Everybody is welcome to contribute any further knowledge to this matter

/end copy

 

On the question of the bracelet, I understand that this is the only speedmsster to come with the 1168, but I understand too that the 1168 was also delivered on other references, like seamasters.

Is that so?

 

I confirm that the ref 1168 bracelet has been used for very few Omega models in the late 70s. The 1168 bracelet is the Apollo-Soyuz bracelet