Omega cal. 1040 'prototype' 176.001 from a dealer

I know I've debated the legitimacy of this dial before, but it is now being offered for sale by a prominent dealer as a completely assembled prototype watch. The watch is for sale here by Iconeek: https://www.iconeek.com/omegapreseriesprototype176001.html

This dial (or an identical one) was seen for sale in 2016 on eBay. The dial (or an identical one) was then seen in 2017 installed in the case of a 176.001. It might be the same one for sale here. Pics:


Both previous eBay sales listings were discussed in this thread, and here are the specific post links to these comments.

In 2016 and 2017 I argued that these weren't prototype dials, but redials. The best case that these were test dials or sample dials came from @Tom Dick who said:


I'm looking to resurrect the conversation around this dial and watch to see what others think. I'm less strong in my conviction than I was 3 years ago, but I think I'm still pretty skeptical. Let me start with my observations:

Dial
-Strange that it has no Omega symbol and no product line (Seamaster or Speedmaster)
-The printing is sloppy compared to all known production dials - the 25 and 35 minute numerals overlap the 6:00 subdial in a way that no other 1040 dials do. There are other areas where the printing is not quite up to standard
-The circled 45 is really odd, I don't know what purpose that serves
-The applied hour markers are different than other 1040 dials
-This dial says T SWISS MADE T, while the other known pre-series/prototype dials from the 1040 family did not
-All told, the dial features that don't match other 1040 dials can be used either as an argument that it is a prototype or pre-series test dial, or an argument that it is just fantasy...The sloppy printing is in my opinion an argument against the dial, or if I'm being generous it is an indication that it was just a very early quick and dirty mock up dial.

Case
-The etched 15 is supposed to signify that it is a prototype, and I admit that it does resemble other confirmed prototypes
-The rest of the case is just a bit more polished than I would expect of a polish, particularly the caseback
-The lack of reference stamped on the inner caseback is used by the seller to be an indication of a prototype, and I admit that is unusual. I don't know where one would obtain an unstamped caseback otherwise.

Movement
-No serial on the rotor is supposed to suggest prototype, but to my eye this is just a 1041 rotor attached to a 1040. Yes, the colors match well but this doesn't convince me that it is a prototype.

Hands
-The hands used here are different from any other 1040 reference, and more similar to non-Omega examples of the Lemania 1340/41

This listing is listed as "contact us" for price.I didn't save the asking price from 2017, although I described it as "silly". I asked, and the current asking price is "spit-out-your-coffee" high. They are asking about what a very very good example of a Big Blue 176.004 would command. Even if this is a legit prototype, I don't know how they arrived at that asking price, as the watch is not one of Omega's shining examples. Not all prototypes are created equal. Some are beautiful variations that we wonder why the design was shelved. Others show they weren't ready yet. I think if I were to even concede that this is a prototype, I think it falls into the latter category, and is just kind of ugly compared to the legit examples of the 1040 family. But that's just my opinion.

So what does everyone else think? Is this a fully assembled 100% original prototype? If so is it worth the asking price? A test dial that has been added to a put-together 176.001 case to make it look more credible? A total franken plus a redial?

I would add to this list. The indices at the date window are sloppy. One index actually intersects the bold date window surround while the other slides just inside the surround. The extended 3:00 index is missing.
Additionally, the T's (SWISS MADE) are are not centered and appear to be inconsistent in size and location relative to the closest indices.
Has anyone seen hands like these (regardless of color) on any other Omega watches?.

I am not sure what ICONEEEK is asking for this watch but you would think they would put a proper fitting (not chewed up) strap on it.

I agree with all the comments so far, thanks guys. On prototypes in general, I'm inherently skeptical. But still, sometimes I wonder if I'm too dismissive so I'm curious if anyone is willing to try to convince me on this one.

Not mentioned in my original post is this nugget from the listing: "The Heritage Department of Omega confirms that the present number 15, is probably a pre-series prototype."

"Probably".

I pretty much also dismiss all stories of "one owner", "barn find", "I met with the previous owner who worked for NASA and only serviced it once", etc. Lately I'm becoming skeptical of the supposed endorsement from Omega's Archives or Heritage Team as well.

Did someone at Omega actually say what the listing credits to them or was that Iconeek's interpretation of an Omega contact's words? Was it said in casual conversation or in official correspondence? Even so, it smacks of an individual's opinion and is pretty non-committal.

And as @Archer said about the hand-engraved 15, it really proves nothing.

Good points from all angles. A prototype case and dial, does not mean the whole watch is a prototype. I think it depends on what it is though. When I built my radial speedsonic in my profile pic from parts, I assembled it for me. I didnt build it for other people or to hawk it as a legit prototype. I consider my watch as a crazy rare collection of parts that might have never been assembled as a real watch. I think the watch you see was built by a hobbyist who wanted to display that cool dial. The business owners should be a little more careful in their research though.

More than similar, I think this exact set of hands can be found on some Tissot Navigator but also on most Lemania-branded 1341 (9801, 9802, 9803)

While I fully agree with your sentiments Andy, I think the biggest problem we are seeing again are greedy individuals looking to cash in and ride on the back of any goodwill coming from the heritage team - goodwill meaning, the time they may give in order to talk with a collector and answer question about a peculiar watch, especially when it does not get an extract. I have a funny feeling the heritage team is just as sick of it as us (us being the target of this greed). And nobody can claim anything was said by the entity known as the 'Omega Heritage Team' without irrefutable proof of it (like a signed letterheaded official document, aka extract). Just, as always, IMH2cO. And apologies if I state the obvious.

Thanks for providing that link. I could not remember which thread mentioned a quasi endorsement by Omega of another questionable prototype watch.

Relative to the red circled 45 - my guess is that is for timing soccer match halves (using the central chronograph minute hand).

which blog might that be?

What I don't understand is why do established dealers expose themselves as such, with this kind of watches.

Greed, and maybe because it's easy to believe in fairytales when you profit from it.
Trusting wannabe experts of a famous Blog probably doesn't help too.😗

Rhymes with bro-pinkie 😀 I stopped reading them quite a while ago...so have no idea of which watch you are talking about (would love to though, feel free to PM me) 👍