EEEEEEEK I hear you say!!

Hold out...

So yesterday I ran a serial with Omega on a very special watch, I will withhold the details of it as per request of the actual current owner.

Now the serial came back as fitted to a Seamaster 145.005, but the watch in question was sold new to the present owner, it also has the original box and docs stamped by the original supplying dealer in the late 60s. It's actually fitted to a Speedmaster.

This is where the issue arises. We know the watch was bought new, it has also never ever been serviced by anyone so there is no chance of any parts being changed at any service in any point in its life. Having spoken to Charles at the Omega Museum, he kindly explained that some watches in the 60s were fitted with movements destined for say a seamaster but actually fitted to a speedmaster. He goes on to say that this was due to several factors like the actual reference that the movement was originally made for was not selling well so production was stopped and the movements were fitted in other cases that would accommodate that movement.

The only downside is that Omega made note of the serial number as being fitted to a Seamaster in the archives but it was actually never fitted to a Seamaster and it was ultimately fitted to a speedmaster. Now we know that the watch has been in the same ownership from new, the only time the watch has been opened is to gain the actual serial for an extract of archives.

Today, I was contacted by someone who has a Straight Writing with the same issue. The movement was originally destined for a Seamaster but fitted to a Speedmaster. When you cross reference the serial it comes back as an 861 from a Speedy on I Love My Speedmaster.

This makes me think just how many more are out there. It seems to be the movements from 67-69. It's clear that there is more than one speedy with this issue.

We simply can't call them franken's because they left the factory like this and an extract is now not available and a refund is not an option.

Interesting to know what you guys think.

 

yes both the papers and serial are the same. It was bought new.

 

The way it builds the database upon thousands of serials i have seen the reference suggest no ‘Moonwatch’ when searching.

 

I am having that very discussion right now!

Its like this...

Lets say movement no 25345678 was originally made for a seamaster but that specific model seamaster was not selling well and production ceased, instead of altering the archives to say the movement was fitted to a speedmaster, it was just fitted and sent to the AD, then Mr ABC came in and bought it, he either kept it for his entire life like the one I've just cross checked yesterday or at some point he sold it on in year (INSERT YEAR HERE ) and then now we can apply for an extract which is moderately a new thing to do, they are coming back and saying that its not the right watch when in reality it was always placed in that watch from the start and has lived in that watch till this very day.

 

It's the Straight Writing that has had an extract applied for and come back as a seamaster reference. The other watch has been owned since new and also come back as a seamaster. Now I know of another one thats the same.

Also, why wouldn't you apply for an extract even if you have owned it from new? Its what some people look for right on some vintage watches, but it seems we cannot always go by the EoA now.

 

Nope. Im sure that people will think that watches that left the factory with the movement that was destined for a seamaster fitted at the factory in a speedy will immediately rule it as a franken, but its becoming clear this is not the case with what we are finding out here.

Omega have openly said that their archives are not complete, missing information and possibly now not correct on some references.

Also remember that these watches were made completely different back then to how they are made today to cope with todays demand so time pretty sure this will not happen with the strict criteria that is running today. I would also not limit this to Omega perhaps, but who knows.

 

I wouldn't say they have been busted so to speak. Like @gefmey said above, those years were not like it is today in terms of control etc. I have a 2998 and a 105.012-64 that they have no record for at all.

Its just how things were run back then, shame we are just discovering it now though.