Omega Extracts: "Production" dates

aprax

There has been some confusion, created by this statement by Phillips in the presentation of their upcoming auction "Geneva: Eight" in connection with a blue dial Speedy:
https://www.phillips.com/detail/OMEGA/CH080218/39
In their effort to explain away the discrepancy between the production date mentioned in the Omega extract (September 11, 1964) and the date of sale mentioned in the "guarantee booklet" which is accompanying the lot (May 18, 1964) they make the extraordinary claim that "thanks to the assistance of Omega" they discovered that Omega "marked in their books the watch as sold only once they received the payment".
@Spacefruit has mentioned this explanation effort in his blog
http://speedmaster101.com/blog/blue-dials-and-the-phillips-auction-in-particular/
and it has been already dicussed in this thread
https://omegaforums.net/threads/original-‘broad-arrow’-family-set-up-for-auction.83230/
Also, @kov has pointed out that the Phillips "guarantee booklet" is probably from a later date (i.e. fake) since it is a booklet used from 1969/1970 on.

Now, I have paid Omega for a number of extracts, at least six, and I am not happy reading that Omega have "assisted" Phillips - and not me - in discovering that the production dates they mention in their extracts are in fact not production dates but absolutely random dates, depending on when some dealer deigned to pay them for a watch. I don't believe the Phillips claim, but I would expect that Omega should demand a retraction from them or otherwise, if the Phillips claim should be correct, reimburse me for the inaccurate Extracts they have sold to me.

To give an example of my problem: They provided me with one extract, which I paid for, according to which my 105.012-66 was produced on May 30, 1967 and delivered to South Africa. I have a (genuine, believe me) guarantee booklet with a sale date of July 3, 1968. Watch sold in South Africa. Now, if the dealer paid them on May 30, 1967, that could very well mean that the watch was actually produced in 1966, so the date mentioned in the extract would actually be of no use whatsoever.

Does anybody have an email address of Petros Protopapas from the Omega Museum? Would very much like to contact him about this.

aprax

Now, I have paid Omega for a number of extracts, at least six, and I am not happy reading that Omega have "assisted" Phillips - and not me - in discovering that the production dates they mention in their extracts are in fact not production dates but absolutely random dates, depending on when some dealer deigned to pay them for a watch. I don't believe the Phillips claim, but I would expect that Omega should demand a retraction from them or otherwise, if the Phillips claim should be correct, reimburse me for the inaccurate Extracts they have sold to me.

...

Does anybody have an email address of Petros Protopapas from the Omega Museum? Would very much like to contact him about this.

G greenecollector

For a watch one watch, I ended up with 3 extracts, provided at different times, the date on all 3 was different.

SpeedyPhill

change the topic title into Omega Extracts: “Payment" dates 😁

kov

Phil, the Heritage team allowed you a lot of their time and attention for different things. Next time you feel the need to have fun of them, ask yourself if it is really necessary, first. 🥱

Foo2rama

Same watch gets three dates?? Why did it get 3 extracts? @greenecollector

If it’s by payment date why does ilovemyspeedmaster.com work?



While I’m with bad/fake paperwork for the Philips... it is possible that the watch was incomplete data in the archives and only the payment received data was found....

SpeedyPhill

Topics on the EoA have always been interesting and let's make clear it's a great service provided by the make, involving some digging in their archives, which have been kept by different employees since decades. Lots of work, for which we should be grateful. So I certainly don't feel Omega lets its customers down, on the contrary!
As an amateur historian I know how meticulous record keeping can be a difficult & time consuming challenge. Moreover, spanning several decades, the manner of keeping details might differ from employee to employee due to the available data at the time and some "mistakes" might creep in. It's not always possible to expect 100% certainty as in record keeping nobody is supervising the supervisor...

MaiLollo

And if @SpeedyPhill has had a special relationship with the Heritage team then it's great for him, but it shouldn't prevent him from speaking his mind if he feels that Omega let its customers down...