- Posts
- 833
- Likes
- 1,777
davy26
·↑Posted on the 'Register' thread by
TsoloT:
I have commented on this controversy and am in agreement with the Italian collector and the offering from base1000
The rest is unsupported speculation which on close examination doesn’t provide anything other than doubt as to the veracity of the explanation
Anyone who’s had the benefit of looking at the system of manufacture in Omegas Archives Is aware that they use the LIFO SYSTEM So in carrying out an enquiry into the manufacturing sequence of the controversial involvement of the Marchi ,researchers would realise that as the Di Marchi movement numbers were earlier the Watches were made earlier as a later batch of movement numbers would follow a later batch later unless they never made any more of that movement
So the only story now convergent with the facts is that Di marchi made the first batch of 100 and because of the increase demand for the watch production reverted to Omega for the last 400 NOT the other way around
This cannot be contrverted as custom and practice in production supports this sequence
Hence the reason no subsequent records exist for the missing 100 as they were made and delivered previously
A priori must be applied in this type of hard copy vacuum
As a concise, logical sum-up this has much going for it.
I think the problem remaining is that however credible the theory may seem, if a contemporaneous record of such circumstances does not alreadyexist in (any) manufacturer's archives, no one could expect (any) manufacturer to acknowledge it as a 'truth.' Therefore I'm afraid that forum member AS will not be able to achieve his apparent objective of getting his watch 'blessed' as of direct Omega manufacture. That's why I feel he'd be better to let it go rather than to continue to stress himself with an unwinnable battle.
If, however, he - as does someone like me with no skin in the game - enjoys the correspondence/debate on an intellectual basis, that's fine.
TsoloT:
I have commented on this controversy and am in agreement with the Italian collector and the offering from base1000
The rest is unsupported speculation which on close examination doesn’t provide anything other than doubt as to the veracity of the explanation
Anyone who’s had the benefit of looking at the system of manufacture in Omegas Archives Is aware that they use the LIFO SYSTEM So in carrying out an enquiry into the manufacturing sequence of the controversial involvement of the Marchi ,researchers would realise that as the Di Marchi movement numbers were earlier the Watches were made earlier as a later batch of movement numbers would follow a later batch later unless they never made any more of that movement
So the only story now convergent with the facts is that Di marchi made the first batch of 100 and because of the increase demand for the watch production reverted to Omega for the last 400 NOT the other way around
This cannot be contrverted as custom and practice in production supports this sequence
Hence the reason no subsequent records exist for the missing 100 as they were made and delivered previously
A priori must be applied in this type of hard copy vacuum
As a concise, logical sum-up this has much going for it.
I think the problem remaining is that however credible the theory may seem, if a contemporaneous record of such circumstances does not alreadyexist in (any) manufacturer's archives, no one could expect (any) manufacturer to acknowledge it as a 'truth.' Therefore I'm afraid that forum member AS will not be able to achieve his apparent objective of getting his watch 'blessed' as of direct Omega manufacture. That's why I feel he'd be better to let it go rather than to continue to stress himself with an unwinnable battle.
If, however, he - as does someone like me with no skin in the game - enjoys the correspondence/debate on an intellectual basis, that's fine.
