Is a 27,7xx,xxx serial number valid for a 145.022-69 ST Speedmaster? Hours of search only showed the regular non-transitional 861 movement have 28,xxx,xxx or greater serial number range. So, is the 27,7xx,xxx serial valid for a 69ST?

Thanks,
Anthony

 

Www.speedmaster101.com

 

I think the poster has already done the research and determined that a 27,xxx,xxx serial is outside of the "normal" 154.022-69 range...

www.speedmaster101 states 28,xxx,xxx and higher for the 145.022-69. 27,xxx,xxx is in the 145.022-68 range.

 

Or more likely a Seamaster.

I have a Seamaster 145.018. Movement 2771xxxx

 

All my numbers are based on observation on original watches and from extracts. However extracts do not show the date part of the reference, so the -68 and -69 numbers are from observation of watches only.

I have not seen a -69 with a serial this low before. So I would err on the side of caution and suspect the case back and movement did not leave the factory together until I see more examples.

A picture of the watch in question will also help some of the "watch whisperers" here to feel if it was original or not.

Let's see a picture.

 

whilst I have huge appreciation for the chronomaddox and speedy101 et al websites ... pls do not take serial number ranges as the ultimate gospel.

the 1960ies were the wild west in terms of supply-chain management, there were NO computers and lets be honest from an Omega/Breitling/RLX, etc... pov ... who would have thought that somebody gave a rat's a$$ about what number of movement you put in there ... those were sealed up and not be opened again until 5 years later - and a watchmaker didnt care for those numbers, either ... watches were bought by a visit to the jeweller store, pointing at a watch and asking how much it is ...

just think of scenarios of batches of watches that had a problem (recalls) ... those were opened up and the movement quite possible be put back into storage.

So, those sites might give you a grasp on the RULE, but there were def. docens, hundrets or 1000s of excemptions

just think of stuff like Longines putting the 294 (reserve de marché) movement in no-rdm watches, Rolex did not even bother to stamp bridges between date and no-date differently (1570 vs 1575), Chronometer calibers in non-chronometer seamasters, etc... I guess the credo back then was "who cares" ... and basically they were right

cheers, Al

 

Well MWO, which is considered the bible in these matters, indicates that the 145.022-69 serial number range began at 28.420xxx. I haven't check the online addendums but that is a sizable gap back to OP watch.

 

Respectfully I disagree with the theory that Omega was a Wild West in its manufacturing standards.

We see very clear distinctions in numbering In batches of references - that why I have learned to ask for the first six digits of a serial. Each reference is seen within a distinct group of numbers.

Omega was a Swiss staffed and run company. I cannot reconcile the idea that some supervisor with a clipboard wasn't hovering over everyone checking off numbers.

I think this idea has grown out of seeing watches with parts substituted after manufacture by workshops, and owners who (desperately) want to believe the watch is original.

I just can't see the Swiss being so careless as to not have a rigid structure as to what movements were used when. Certainly the observed original watches fit the theory that movements were used in batches.

Nothing is gospel, of course. But as we see more watches with extracts, the weight of evidence is falling on the side of the batched manufacturing theory rather than the pile of random movements on a bench shoved in without care to which one went where theory.

 

The watch in question is a watch being sold by a well known dealer. Is it a no-no to post the listing?

The watch in question is a watch being sold by a well known dealer. Is it a no-no to post the listing?

 

It is most acceptable to post a link

Almost required

 

Here it is. I've been eyeing it for a while. But can't seem to pull the trigger b/c of the serial number.

http://www.lunaroyster.com/watches/1969-omega-speedmaster-pre-moon-145022-69

 

I doubt that the watch left the factory with that bezel or bracelet either.

 

Any examples of this?

 

This is not a good watch.
i am sure this is just another "honest mistake".

 

Thankyou Omegaforums.

My search continues...

 

I certainly would not have an issue with the 27,7xx,xxx serial number being valid for a 145.022-69 ST Speedmaster, as I had one significantly lower than that, complete with the original warranty booklet and Archive Extract. Mine had a 145.022-69 ST caseback, although the extract showed a December 1968 production date. The serial number was 26,555,383. This is obviously 1.200,000 lower than the OP's example, produced in December 1968 and wearing a '69 caseback. Obviously I cannot prove that the caseback was original to the watch, but the Extract confirms the movement number and production date, which was within the last month of 1968. The completed warranty booklet shows that it wasn't sold to the original owner until the following December, possibly as a Christmas present??
Interestingly, at the same time another member of this forum had a 321 145.012-67 ST with a movement number slightly lower than this 861.

 

Ahh I see the moonwatch only book has been wrong here

 

@TomGW, I'd say yours is more likely to be a -68 (26mil serial with aml dial) that's had an incorrect caseback put on it, especially with its 68 production date.

 

That is interesting as that serial number is at the very low end of the 145.022-68 range and your watch does show all the aspects of the transitional. Like you said, there is no way to positively determine thst the watch originally had that caseback, but maybe the 69 number is somehow tied to the watch being delivered to the US? Maybe all of those transitionals were marked 69 for some reason instead of 68?

 

Or yes I believe that the posted watch above was a transitional 68 and not a 69 premoon