Greetings all,
Apologies if this has been covered ad infinitum on previous occasions, but could members kindly confirm under what auspices Omega shall and shall not provide an extract for an Omega timepiece? To take the extremes: if i have simply a movement (let's say a 321, for example's sake) with a movement number, i think i am right in saying Omega shalln't provide an extract for it, i.e. it is impossible for me to determine which watch that movement orignally came in? Conversely, if i have a full watch, they will. At what point do these lines become blurred...? Are there examples where less-than-complete watches can get Extracts, and why might this be the case sometimes, but noth other times?
Many thanks for any light than can be shone.

 

They really just need the movement #. They ask for photos of the watch now I believe, but it isn't a requirement. There are some missing records for a period of 321s, but many are able to get extracts.

 

Last time I ordered an Extract , I was also asked to provide a photo of the watch (although I don’t know whether that was mandatory) , you can provider further remarks but those (unlike years before) won’t appear on the extract

 

Thanks @BlackTalon . So are you saying whatever Omega movement I've got, i'll be able to find out what watch it originally came in? I mean, (ignoring missing records) that would seem to be the most straightforward service they could offer, but i got the impression from somewhere it wasn't as simple as that ? Perhaps I misunderstood. Either way, it's good to know.

 

Providing pictures of the watch in Question has become mandatory. So no, getting an extract for a movement only won't work and I'm sure this is for good reasons.

 

Got it - makes eminent sense. Thank you.

 

I think there are essentially two systems. For countries that do this on-line, supplying photos is mandatory - it won't let you step through the process without adding them.

For countries where this is done via a form submitted, like the US, it seems that you can do this without adding the photos.

If this was truly just an extract of the archives, all they should need is the serial number, and that is the way it used to be (not that long ago they asked for the case number too, but you could leave it blank it and it still be processed). Why on earth they would need photos to confirm what the archive says I have no idea, but to me this makes it something other than just an extract of the archives.

Cheers, Al

 

Latest since the process was changed for the first time, somewhen 10 years ago(?), a EOA order without case number to the provided serial didn't work. Makes perfect sense since the EOA was always about approval if the movement/reference match. I can't remember ever being issued one on the official way without both. Neither inoffially btw.
Extending it to pictures along with case/reference number also makes sense, seen from a buyers perspective.

 

Well, regarding the time frame when you didn't have to put a case number, it wasn't 10 years ago for sure. I'll have to go back and check the last time I did this.

I personally do not think requiring a case number or photos makes sense at all. A request for an extract should be the information in the archives related to a specific serial number - that's it. It's not verifying or approving anything, just providing information related to a serial number.

The idea that Omega will not issue an extract if the case doesn't match the movement serial number makes zero sense. Again this isn't some sort of authentication, it's just a request for information. To me adding in the case was bad enough, but now the requirement for photos makes the entire process very suspect in my mind. Add to that stories of "owner supplied" information being included take it to an entire other level of unease for me.

 

What are Omega trying to achieve by requiring the case number and photo? Like you say, it would appear to be changing it in to a quasi 'authentication' process, which it clearly isn't, and should simply be to find out what watch a certain movement came from originally. Do they still keep the fee if it is rejected? If not, it would appear to make even less sense, from their perspective (unless i'm missing something).

 

I don't think you are missing anything...

 

I can confirm this to be the case. I requested an extract last month from my local Omega Boutique in Atlanta, and they did not require photographs.

 

I ordered an extract twice. In both cases, it was denied because the movement serial number doesn't match the case. Of course they kept the CHF 130.

 

That sucks. So now no one can ever attempt to return a movement to an original numbered case. Thanks Omega!

 

Does anyone know why Omega collectors in the USA (like me) are prohibited to use the online extract request service? Using online tools makes processes more efficient, accurate, and just run smoother.

 

I have seen this asked before in other threads. Short answer is tradmarks. Omega is too generic to trademark in the US (The desiges as I understand are copyrighted.) No single letter of the alphabet can be trademarked (otherwise I would trademark the letter 'e.')
When I was testing fonts for apple in the 1990s this came up a lot. The big players wanted to trademark fonts for the licenses. Groups of letters hower can be trademarked if in a given font.
In other threads, there is also reference to a globe symbol, which is trademarked and secretly imposed on newer watches. There was a whole thread on the lawsuit over this with Costco.
Note there are differences between Trademarks and copyrights, although modern corporations want to obfuscate this. Technically copyrights expire at the death of the author. Trademarks never expire. The copyright was changed a bit in the 1970s so it is now basically death of the author plus how long Walt Disney has been dead. This is known as the Mickey mouse rule, so everything created after 1927 has a different copyright expiry date. Currently the number is 100 years. So stuff before 1923 is now in the public domain. Will be interesting what happens in 2027. I noticed that Disney is already adding the 100 to their logo. They did buy Oswald the lucky rabbit back from Universal.

There is also a US firm that uses the name Omega that makes industrial sensors.

-j

 

Could you please explain exactly how trademarks prevent the ordering of extracts via the web in the US?

 

I remembered reading an article here on OF
I just searched the forums for 'costco' and found the reference
https://omegaforums.net/threads/the...ject-sales-history.129271/page-2#post-1849929 note I had to sub click on the wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco_Wholesale_Corp._v._Omega,_S._A. as the post click took me to a wikipedia redirect for a misspelling.
It was my understanding from reading threads here that this is what lead to the retaliation. Could be wrong. I am often wrong. Which is why I like it when people correct me.
-j
Edit not sure why the driect link to wikipedia does not work works when I paste it but not as an embedded link.
'en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco_Wholesale_Corp._v._Omega,_S._A.'

another edit, I did another search and found
https://omegaforums.net/threads/correcting-a-145-022-speedy.60960/page-2#post-760753 I may have been confusing the two threads.

 

The trademark excuse seems like complete nonsense. Lack of enforceable trademarks does not legally preclude any transaction. I’m certainly able to purchase a watch directly from Omega over the internet.

More likely Omega imposes this restriction as a way to force interactions with their boutiques. They could provide extracts over the internet, but they choose not to do so.

 

Okay I’m trying to connect the dots here. Are you suggesting that because Omegas challenge on the globe trademark failed in US courts, that Omega is preventing ordering of extracts via the web in the US as a form of retaliation?