OMEGA Apollo-Soyuz: The hidden truths

Posts
10
Likes
11
I have had several of these watches in my hands and they all had a limited 3-digit serial number on the covers.
Most of these covers the serial number are very bad because they are recorded very smoothly.
I own one, My Apollo Soyuz has that number and it is in the range 39.181.XXX and according to the omega extract its production is from "May 3º 1976".

The funny thing is that my estract does not get my limited edition number on my cover, and my watch does carry that number. Nor do they indicate me the reference of the bracelet. Of course I have an 1168.
I hope I can help with this data.
 
Posts
178
Likes
137
I have had several of these watches in my hands and they all had a limited 3-digit serial number on the covers.
Most of these covers the serial number are very bad because they are recorded very smoothly.
I own one, My Apollo Soyuz has that number and it is in the range 39.181.XXX and according to the omega extract its production is from "May 3º 1976".

The funny thing is that my estract does not get my limited edition number on my cover, and my watch does carry that number. Nor do they indicate me the reference of the bracelet. Of course I have an 1168.
I hope I can help with this data.

thank you very much for your availability.

you wrote me that you have an Apollo-Soyuz with a 39.181.XXX range, in this regard I would like to ask you the number engraved on the caseback, even only the first number of the three is fine.
Unfortunately, the question of engraving on the caseback is inexplicable, it is not clear what criterion has used the Maison Demarchi to affect these particular caseback. One thing is certain; I saw a hundred Apollo-Soyuz watches and all the casebacks were engraved!
 
Posts
10
Likes
11
The number of my xxxx is 0XX the number is less than the number 20.
As it happens to all, it is recorded very soft and it is difficult to see the engraving.
but mine can still see the correct number
 
Posts
178
Likes
137
The number of my xxxx is 0XX the number is less than the number 20.
As it happens to all, it is recorded very soft and it is difficult to see the engraving.
but mine can still see the correct number

recapping; your Apollo-Soyuz has one of the last official Omega movements that, rather than having a caseback with an engraving closer to the number 500; he has one that belongs to the beginning of progressive numbering. I had already noticed this discrepancy even on the first movements installed on the Pre-Apollo-Soyuz. As if the Maison Demarchi had started to affect the contrary unfortunately, however ... does not seem to be a rule that accumulates all the Apollo-Soyuz ...

Thanks again
 
Posts
11,567
Likes
20,243
Is it not already established that Omega doesn't release individual movements in chronological order, instead releasing batches? Therefore, movement numbers will not be sequential with LE numbers, but will be randomly assigned within the batch.
 
Posts
429
Likes
627
Is it not already established that Omega doesn't release individual movements in chronological order, instead releasing batches? Therefore, movement numbers will not be sequential with LE numbers, but will be randomly assigned within the batch.
Per my comment on the other thread, there is at least 1 Extract which quotes the back case serial number. Presumably only 2 ways this could happen:
1. The watch owner sent either the watch itself or a picture of the case back to Omega and they replicated that detail on the Extract.
2. Omega have access to at least a partial "mapping" of movement numbers to case numbers.
My guess is that (1) is the answer here.

Apart from that, it seems self-evident to me that the back case A-S serial numbers are engraved very differently from the other markings on the case back.
 
Posts
11,567
Likes
20,243
Per my comment on the other thread, there is at least 1 Extract which quotes the back case serial number. Presumably only 2 ways this could happen:
1. The watch owner sent either the watch itself or a picture of the case back to Omega and they replicated that detail on the Extract.
2. Omega have access to at least a partial "mapping" of movement numbers to case numbers.
My guess is that (1) is the answer here.

Apart from that, it seems self-evident to me that the back case A-S serial numbers are engraved very differently from the other markings on the case back.

3. The extract is old and Omega were known to include customer supplied info on older extracts, even when it wasn't verified by the archives.
 
Posts
429
Likes
627
3. The extract is old and Omega were known to include customer supplied info on older extracts, even when it wasn't verified by the archives.
That's what I meant by my (1)
 
Posts
10
Likes
11
[QUOTE = "Davidt, publicación: 852633, miembro: 6473"] 3. El extracto es antiguo y se sabe que Omega incluye información suministrada por el cliente sobre extractos anteriores, incluso cuando no fue verificada por los archivos. [/ QUOTE]
Per my comment on the other thread, there is at least 1 Extract which quotes the back case serial number. Presumably only 2 ways this could happen:
1. The watch owner sent either the watch itself or a picture of the case back to Omega and they replicated that detail on the Extract.
2. Omega have access to at least a partial "mapping" of movement numbers to case numbers.
My guess is that (1) is the answer here.

Apart from that, it seems self-evident to me that the back case A-S serial numbers are engraved very differently from the other markings on the case back.


When I send my data to omega of the soyuz apollo I inform them that my watch was the cover number 0XX. They ignored it and did not put it on the certificate.
But I did inform them. Do not send them a picture but.
I am somewhat disappointed to receive the certificate not find this information.
a greeting
 
Posts
833
Likes
1,777
[QUOTE = "Davidt, publicación: 852633, miembro: 6473"] 3. El extracto es antiguo y se sabe que Omega incluye información suministrada por el cliente sobre extractos anteriores, incluso cuando no fue verificada por los archivos. [/ QUOTE]



When I send my data to omega of the soyuz apollo I inform them that my watch was the cover number 0XX. They ignored it and did not put it on the certificate.
But I did inform them. Do not send them a picture but.
I am somewhat disappointed to receive the certificate not find this information.
a greeting
I think you must bear in mind that a manufacturer should not generate a document which includes data not verified by its own archived information at source. In the situation you describe, whether or not a photograph is submitted, it would not be correct for the data to be accepted as necessarily related to the item (watch in this case) otherwise defined by its recorded serial number.
 
Posts
429
Likes
627
I think you must bear in mind that a manufacturer should not generate a document which includes data not verified by its own archived information at source. In the situation you describe, whether or not a photograph is submitted, it would not be correct for the data to be accepted as necessarily related to the item (watch in this case) otherwise defined by its recorded serial number.
So how do you explain the certificate on the other thread which appears to quote the A-S back case serial number?
 
Posts
17,620
Likes
26,728
So how do you explain the certificate on the other thread which appears to quote the A-S back case serial number?

Easy actually, and referenced in this thread. For awhile the remarks section could have data not verified by Omega and provided by the owner.

There is some question as to the extant of this but at least one military issue watch has serious doubt about its issued status as its in remarks but not shown as delivered to MOD. While more recent and older extracts clearly show MOD delivery and nothing in the remarks. It’s not known if this service was extended to a few high profile collectors or was more widespread or variable.
 
Posts
429
Likes
627
Easy actually, and referenced in this thread. For awhile the remarks section could have data not verified by Omega and provided by the owner.

There is some question as to the extant of this but at least one military issue watch has serious doubt about its issued status as its in remarks but not shown as delivered to MOD. While more recent and older extracts clearly show MOD delivery and nothing in the remarks. It’s not known if this service was extended to a few high profile collectors or was more widespread or variable.
The Extract on the other thread was posted in March 2010 so is at least that old.
 
Posts
10
Likes
11
The Extract on the other thread was posted in March 2010 so is at least that old.

I requested my certificate in 2014
 
Posts
17,620
Likes
26,728
I requested my certificate in 2014
That policy was not in place in 2014
 
Posts
333
Likes
209
So through the roller coaster ride being this thread, now what points made in this thread are hard facts?
 
Posts
461
Likes
353
If you have any doubts about the accuracy of the Omega record s in its relationships with subcontractors I suggest you visit our very learned colleague cal 1040 ‘s web site and review his very well explained empirical enquiry into the true production numbers of the speedmaster 125 a watch which not only had to pass muster in Omegas hands but also by way of independent cosc certifications

Received wisdom is 2000 limited no numbered issued ...reality.... as many as 18,000 produce with at least 2000 alphanumerically stamped !

My enquiries in respect of at least three other diverse but limited production models shows similarities of discrepancy
not properly explainable by anything other than mis directed misinformed chaos promulgated by poor record keeping

This is not a criticism of Omega as we are measuring history using today’s calibrations however it’s both right and proper that eminent forums such as this should be more able to accommodate a more epistemological approach and used more common sense and less dogma in the face of this sorry story

All the Watches produced are from Omega parts and they were either made at Omega’s factory or a place certified by Omega they ALL appear to be numbered sequentially !!

With production limited to 500 and apart from a random allocation of movement serial numbers which may have been allocated at production ,or movement swapped after service or merely made and not properly recorded, there is no other discussion that may be entertained

This attempt at apartheid is arrant nonsense particularly in view of the fact that the so called DiMarci 100 may infact be the rarer prototype for the 400 issued by Omega ...a situation with many precedents
 
Posts
543
Likes
980
Some quality and entertaining discussion going on in this thread. But alas, a bit too much saltiness. These were my takeaways:

- MWO authors' account of the "official" or "recognised" 400 Apollo Soyuz models, within a specific serial range, rings true to me. I don't think we can discount the extensive efforts made by them to pour through and corroborate using actual historical Omega documents. And the snapshot of the extract for one of these 400, also supports the view.
- For the remaining pieces, I think we've moved beyond doubt that DeMarchi in Italy assembled an additional number of watches using parts exclusively given to them.
- As to how many watches were assembled by DeMarchi, maybe its 2-3, maybe its 10, maybe its 100, I don't think anyone has a document that establishes the figure beyond a reasonable doubt...
- People have differing views whether these DeMarchi pieces ought to be considered legit Omega watches, since there was apparently some sort of written agreement between Omega and DeMarchi concerning these. And even what this agreement between Omega and DeMarchi covers, is unlikely to be universally agreed upon by all participants in this thread - since folks are throwing around words like "assemble" and "modify", which are all open to interpretation.
- Bienne's archival system will not be able to identify the DeMarchi-assembled watches, since these were put together in Switzerland and apparently neither the DeMarchis nor their staff thought to inform HQ of the serials they were putting together. Personally I find this strange and it smells a bit dishonest to me - when considering that even if the DeMarchis were assembling fresh watches via a "liberal" interpretation of their agreement with Omega, they had to have known that the "original" 400 exhibited a specific configuration rendering them unique (presentation box, serial, caseback numbering, etc.) as opposed to these fresh and unmarked watches they were selling to unknowing customers.

At the end of the day, if you're buying an Apollo Soyuz piece and it exists sans stamped caseback, or is outside the "recognised"/"official" serial range - chances are these were not "factory products" from Omega HQ, but were assembled either by DeMarchi, or else by someone looking to make a quick buck off a franken. Whether that makes it more or less desirable, cheaper vs more expensive - entirely up to that person's narrative based on his/her piecing together these events, facts, views, speculations.

My personal view - I don't see the DeMarchi pieces as originals and like spacefruit, would rather save my scratch for something with all the "official" hallmarks.
 
Posts
3,654
Likes
22,210
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!


that's it...
Welcome and congrats on a very interesting post!