Omega extracts from the archives - Myths and realities

Dan S

I agree that the absence of EOAs shouldn't stop one from buying a vintage watch. However, there is certainly an increased risk that one might learn in the future that a movement has been swapped from a difference reference. Of course, if Omega never reinstates the EOA program, this will never happen.

speedy4ever

Of course, both an EOA and a correct analysis would be better...

These tables can provide some guidance regarding the Speedmaster:

• https://www.watchfid.com/overview-of-the-speedmaster-moonwatch-production/
• https://speedmaster101.com/serial-quick-reference-to-78/

And a date approximation with Eugene's query website: https://www.ilovemyspeedmaster.com/productiondateprediction/

bazelot

I agree that the only use for the EOA is to know whether the movement was actually not swapped. Quick observation on the Speedmaster101 website. I have a 105.012 65 with 24536xxx serial number and according to the website the movement belongs in a 66 rather than a 65. According to my research and what is generally acknowledged on the forum the serial number of the 65 goes past the 2452xxxx range mentioned on speedmaster101 (like this one for example: https://marketplace.watchcharts.com/listing/16283497-wts-1967-omega-speedmaster-ref-105-012-65).

speedy4ever

You are right, check in our review: https://www.watchfid.com/overview-of-the-speedmaster-moonwatch-production/

We have collected several 105.012-65 in 24.537 millions, the highest we have is 24.537.921

bazelot

That is very interesting. I have a 66 CB with SN 24537640. It shows that there was some overlap between production run.

pdxleaf

Thanks, gentlemen.

By production date, you are saying the date when the watch was considered complete and left the factory, correct? The production date is not the date that the movement, (which is the part that contains the serial number), was produced. The movement could have been produced much earlier.

Regarding production dates, were these recorded when the watch left the factory? This date is not when the watch was sold, correct? Are you aware of any records (I assume not) that identify when a watch was sold? It sometimes causes confusion when older watches sat in a store for a few years before being sold the first time. If the watch had an early movement serial number, this could possibly result in a watch that has a sales receipt four years or so after the serial number, which might make people question whether the movement was swapped. Is this thinking accurate?

In upcoming editions of the MWO, will the serial number ranges of the references be adjusted? That is, how certain are you of the serial numbers that are currently assigned to references? Meaning, should the ranges in MWO be treated as guides versus certainty? And if guides, how close are the estimates, mostly correct with possible outliers, or other?

Regarding the 145.022-69 SW A11, as you know current thought is that this combination was originally sold in Japan, (although there have been a few extracts that have shown delivery to Switzerland and Argentina.) For watches that were supposed to be sold in one country, an extract is very helpful. Are there other references or combinations that were only sold in certain countries, such as Apollo-soyuz and other Japan only models? Have valuable do you think an extract is for these types of watches?

As an aside, if a watch was supposed to have only been sold in Japan but the extract reports it was sold in another country (e.g. Argentina), how reliable is the extract? Are you aware of a reason for how that information could be incorrect, or how a watch could have been sold to a different country as a one-off transaction?

As another aside, I am quite interested in the 145.022-69 SW A11. Is there any chance that Omega archives contain additional records of communication between Omega and any individuals who may have requested this steel caseback? The extracts are a fun and interesting look into vintage models, but it seems like there would be additional historical records beyond production records alone. Any chance that these exist and would become available to the public, us? Does Omega have an historian or if not, plans to appoint one in the future?

Thanks again for your work and sharing it with the community. It's fun.

Dave

big case

correct analysis is the most important and first step

after this and if you do this by your own (with help from collector-friends or
from this forum) you learn for example what importance a extract can have or
perhabs not have

it depends on what watch we talk about

example 1:

a vintage railmaster 2914 is a collectible rare watch, so that the price is high

the movement is not rare, not expensive and in a lot of Omega watches/references
it was used


you can make correct analysis, but at least only the extract can tell you based
on the movement number, that the watch incl. the movement is authentic

otherwise perhabs the movement was once in a 400 euro watch


example 2:

a vintage Speedmaster professional with Cal 321 you can make correct analysis
and than you are close to the goal without extract, because there are not so much
possibilities with swapped movements

watchyouwant

There is more detailed information for certain models , which is not in the microfiches. Is buried most of the time in different Departments of the Factory ; for example rgd. "Experimental" Movement mods , that were sold in Watches , but never mass produced. The Prototype Canadian delivery Railmaster from 1955 , which had the Swan neck regulation added , springs to mind. But infos about " red center seconds " fitted to a few Speedmasters, are not in extra research within the factory included. I researched with John Diethelm in an outdrawn research inside the Factory the military issued Railmasters/ labelled Seamaster on the Dial, as the second batch from the early 1960's. As quite often with issued military deliveries, the Data were not assessible for (mostly) 50 years.