As an example we have a OF member talking about a Omega Speedmaster 145.022-69 Is this the serial number on the movement? If not, what to the group of numbers represent ?
Model number 145.022 Made in 1969 A lot easier than now as the model number is something like 30165477626747929726367847265
You'll find that number (called the reference number, or model number) stamped by Omega on the inside of the caseback. The serial number is on the actual movement (circled in green below).
Ok, got it. On the inside of the case of an Omega, I have 166-0260-366-0863 So this is model number 166-0260-366 made August 1963 or am I mistaken?
I could be wrong, but I think that's a situation where that case-back could be used for two different references: 166.0260 and 366.0863
Ok, here is the inside of the case. These numbers have meaning or is this a replacement case I am dealing with?
No you have double signed or used in 2 references case back... or a wierd situation where they changed the reference to a part number and the the second number is the reference and the first is the case part number. Generally this is the same watch though. Also keep in mind the 2nd number is not the production year but the first year of that version... the 145.022-69/71/74/76/78 are the marks. So a 1977 watch would be a 145.022-76. Generally there are changes between these that in the 145.022 case is minor. But early -76 are identical to -74’s and late one are identical to -78’s. After 1980 they are all called 145.022 with no date year till around 1990 or so. Then the inside caseback was marked 145.0022 as a part number for the case. Keep in mind many small variations exist from 1980-1999. Welcome to the insanity.
The first digit "3" just means it is a man's bracelet watch IIRC. These double-signed case-backs aren't uncommon. [Edit: @ulackfocus typed faster.]
There is a third option, you could tell me ‘dude you’ll never buy a watch worth a crap, don’t worry about”
Insanity? Seems like I need to apply a buttload of logic to what you just explained. I did really lousy in logic classes, probably why my LSAT was so low.
On a different note, perhaps you could introduce us to The Daughter...* *having noted your avatar, I also feel compelled to mentioned that I am joking...