After reading a few comments on this discussion , i am wondering how much we should place faith and trust on the omega extract as a form of authentication of the timepieces???

a comment was made about lack of details for the earlier Speedmaster references (2915, 2998, 105002), and how Omega issued them as "honour system". If dealers are using these as authentication system without the system being 100%, then are we potentially paying extra for a watch that may not be authentic?

 

An extract is not meant to authenticate a watch in its current state, but to indicate, with a serial number as input, what type of watch / model it should be. Most of the time it provides country of delivery and date. Now you know that for pre-20.525 extract, there is a doubt, except in following cases:
- you have the original papers (which indicate model reference, as for my 105.003-63)
- your watch belong to the few exceptions for which they have info and thus will deliver an extract.
- you are or you know perfectly well the first owner and thus can trust there were no movement mix-up

but again, this will NOT certify that the watch in 2014 is with the coherent parts...

 

I think it concerns all Omega movements made by Lemania.

Vital? At least it's a matter of money. One can find "cheap" Seamasters for sale in the same serial range blocks as CK 2915's or CK 2998's. From this point, it's not necessary to explain more in details what can happen and for sure happened. It's a 2915, but in case Omega recovers information, you will receive an extract stating that it's a Seamaster. Nothing incorrect, but in case of sale, you will loose a lot.

I almost bought a Ploprof a while ago, but after checking it happened that the movement was from another Seamaster having the 1002. For this reason I did not buy it. May be I am stupid?

 

So for some purposes, that 70CHF is well worth it

omega gas archive does have a disclaimer that it is not a certificate of authenticity, just extracts from their info. But how else can we authenticate these watches apart from buying ones with original papers (super rare) or from original owner (not common)? I suspect, many of us, it will depend on consensus amongst experts like this forum.

 

You are right that dial and sometimes bezel are as important. In fact they are visually even more important than movement and its serial.Probably if the identification at Omega was based on dial serial number, that would be as much important. But in that case you could not swap a Speedmaster dial with a Seamaster dial.


Let's go back to real situation.

Both criteria are important:
- original/correct parts account for the watch look
- serial accounts for its "official" identity
- both are important (at various levels) for your wallet.

But I would prefer a very good 2915 with all original/correct parts and a Seamaster movement (impossible to prove actually), than a 2915 with correct s/n, but service dial, hands and bezel.

 

I think the extract is more for the owner's piece of mind and not so much about verification. I have one for my Seamaster

 

It was more common than not for Rolex to put whatever caseback they had in the parts bin on the 34mm models. This is why you see 5500s with 1002 more often than not. id put $20 on your mismatched case back being original to your watch

 

Ah okay, then yeah, that makes sense. Some folks have a stroke when they realize their case back doesn't match the reference number on the SS models. Gold capped could be the same way as they weren't always bespoke case backs stamped for them. near impossible to have a 66 on a 59 though. Rolex was slapdash in those days but not that bad! I bet they were swapped like you said

my late model 5500 has a 1002 case back. I'm pretty sure by 1985 they'd stopped producing 5500 CBs anyway. You really only see 5500 CBs on the early ones and the Explorer version. Original 5500 Explorers are so often faked that finding a real one is impossible. Even if my mother was selling it to me and it had original paperwork, from the 1960s, I'd still have to question it

 

and that's even more scary as the price difference between Explorer II and GMT is 2-3folds, but both use the same GMT mvt (cal1575). There have been many fake ExpII on the market which did not start its life as that.

These archival extract really act to reassure the owner that the watch they own did in fact start as one particular model and not another.

Playing vintage anything is just a minefield...

 

yep

great examples are the 5512 with 5513 caseback!

 

agree with both of you on all accounts here. But... yes , there are always "buts".

I would also prefer all original parts in my vintage watches. For aesthetic but also originality and value of the watch. But original watches are getting rarer and harder to get. So price goes up. And even if we have the mean to, the watch may not be available on the market.

Another dilemma is , what happens if the watch has unusable parts? well, then it's either into the bin, use for spare parts, or replace with service parts. Whilst this is unpalatable for some, I would say the last option (replace with service parts) is probably the best option, IMO, to allow a watch to continue function as a watch. Same with vintage car scenes. If something is broken, it would be great to track down the original part, but if not available, then a custom job. Would that affect the value of the car? yes, but in my mind, it would be sad to see that car not fixed and then junked.

 

Interesting article in local paper re: vintage cars restore or preserve. Here

 

There is a lot of truth in that Gator. However, as we move toward 2020, even a watch from 1970 will be pushing a half century, this will become more and more common. Hell, the 1990s are almost retro.