Community Stories

Speedmaster 145.022-74: A Puzzle

WurstEver
Posts
441
Likes
1,671
airansun airansun
Never saw this thread before today. 🤔

My first Speedmaster ever, bought in a San Francisco pawn shop in the Spring of 1982, is 31312813. At its first service with me, my watchmaker told me it looked like it had never been serviced previously.

I do not have an extract for it. (These are old photos and not up to my current standards.)

That's a lovely example you have there. If you do ever decide to obtain an extract, please do consider sharing it and popping the results into the ilovemyspeedmaster database. There aren't a huge number of extracts out there for these (yet), so every little extra bit of information is helpful. 👍
 
WurstEver
Posts
441
Likes
1,671
cvrle1 cvrle1
Here is what looks to be all original -76 with 29xxx serial number

Hmm, does the paperwork seem to suggest this one left the factory with movement number 39926725? That would make more sense for a -76
Screenshot_20200303-140509_1.png
 
cvrle1
Posts
736
Likes
734
WurstEver WurstEver
Hmm, does the paperwork seem to suggest this one left the factory with movement number 39926725? That would make more sense for a -76
Screenshot_20200303-140509_1.png

Saw that too, but had no idea why it was written in "Metal" portion and not "Mov. No". Even what is written in "Ref." makes no sense to me. Not sure why would someone get 29xxx serial into -76, unless it was just a movement that someone had laying around and swapped it because original stopped working or something like that.
 
BenBagbag
Posts
2,830
Likes
9,170
The papers don't match the serial. Nothing seems to line up on that one. Something is very wrong there.
 
kov
Posts
4,114
Likes
16,312
The overlap in -74 -76 is a known thing. There were -74 produced in late 1976 with serial numbers higher than other known -76. Archives confirm that, I remember we had this conversation with them. The same overlap exists between -71 and -74 as well as -76 and -78 references, but only in regards to mixed production, not serials, see below.

MWO (3rd ed.) references
-69 serial range to be : 28.420.xxx - 32.857.xxx (production years 1969-1974) - Premoon + SW all -69s together
-71 serial range to be : 31.323.xxx - 32.895.xxx (production years 1971-1974)
-74 serial range to be : 31.312.xxx - 39.185.xxx (production years 1975-1976)
-76 serial range to be : 37.870.xxx - 39.946.xxx (production years 1976-1979)
-78 serial range to be : 44.818.xxx - 44.822.xxx (production years 1979-1982)

cvrle1 cvrle1
Here is what looks to be all original -76 with 29xxx serial number

@cvrle1 that watch doesn't belong to the rest of the package, very obviously. 👎
Edited:
 
padders
Posts
9,936
Likes
15,609
kov kov
@cvrle1 that watch doesn't belong to the rest of the package, very obviously. 👎
It could, it’s most likely a movement swap IMO as the dial looks -76 too. It’s a red herring when it comes to outlier early serials on -74s
Edited:
 
kov
Posts
4,114
Likes
16,312
padders padders
It could, it’s most likely a movement swap IMO as the dial looks 76 too.

Or a -69 watch, serviced in late seventies hence a later dial. ::rimshot::
 
padders
Posts
9,936
Likes
15,609
A big service if they changed the caseback too but I agree it’s possible.
 
kov
Posts
4,114
Likes
16,312
padders padders
A big service if they changed the caseback too but I agree it’s possible.

It could simply have been damaged at a point in time. Nobody would care to replace the damaged parts with period correct -69 parts (caseback, step dial). 😀
 
JMH76
Posts
88
Likes
152
Northernman Northernman
Omega Saga caliber list states a shift to 18j in 1993. Still cal 861. Still LWO.
According to the same lists they did not change designation.

All of the 86x movements are listed as LWO - Lemania Watch Orient.

Perhaps the shift of the cal (1)86x production equipment did not occur until Breguet and Hayek/Swatch took over Lemania again in the mid/late 1990s?
At that time they focused Breguet/Lemania on high-end watchmaking.
Although a fine construction, the 86x is not fitting that term.
Well, according to this article I just found, https://iwmagazine.com/news-and-now/20110705/the-lemania-legacy-2/, GHB owned Lemania starting in 1992 and Swatch acquired GHB in 1999 so the change in the inscription from “17 jewels” to “18 jewels” seems not to be a result of ownership changes of Lemania. So much for that theory about it since the inscription changed about 1995.
 
WurstEver
Posts
441
Likes
1,671
JMH76 JMH76
As I noted in my article on Fratello, “the first three years of 18 jewel 861 movements (1992-1994) apparently continued to have bridges reading ‘seventeen jewels.’ It seems it was not until 1995 that the words ‘eighteen jewels’ appeared on the gold plated 861 movement.” The shift of production to Omega might explain that.

Fantastic article, James. Thanks for a really interesting read. For anyone looking for some good speedy-related content, look no further: https://www.fratellowatches.com/why-i-purchased-an-omega-speedmaster-professional/
 
Northernman
Posts
4,437
Likes
18,230
JMH76 JMH76
Well, according to this article I just found, https://iwmagazine.com/news-and-now/20110705/the-lemania-legacy-2/, GHB owned Lemania starting in 1992 and Swatch acquired GHB in 1999 so the change in the inscription from “17 jewels” to “18 jewels” seems not to be a result of ownership changes of Lemania. So much for that theory about it since the inscription changed about 1995.
The shifting of manufacturing and tools for the 86x from Lemania to Omega is still not confirmed by any of this.
 
WurstEver
Posts
441
Likes
1,671
WurstEver WurstEver
Hey @ndgal, there was another 31x -74 that went through your hands some months back that could help to inform this discussion: https://omegaforums.net/threads/cir...npolished-1171-633-bracelet-box-papers.78134/

Do you have a record of the date on the extract of that one?

It's a bit odd to be replying to my own comment and it almost certainly says something about the shall we say niche nature of this issue, but I stumbled upon the answer to this question here ... https://omegaforums.net/threads/speedmaster-145-022-dial-question.111202/page-2

I8gEgs.jpg QKywGt.png


All credit for these photos to @ndgal. It's another -74 with a 31x/1971 extract issued before the 2019 changes to the extract process. Still yet to see a post-change extract for a -74 with this combination of serial and production date. Or an older extract showing 31x/1975-6. But then again, I haven't been looking very closely lately. If you have either, I'd still be interested to see it.
 
Foo2rama
Posts
17,758
Likes
26,938
WurstEver WurstEver
It's a bit odd to be replying to my own comment and it almost certainly says something about the shall we say niche nature of this issue, but I stumbled upon the answer to this question here ... https://omegaforums.net/threads/speedmaster-145-022-dial-question.111202/page-2

I8gEgs.jpg QKywGt.png


All credit for these photos to @ndgal. It's another -74 with a 31x/1971 extract issued before the 2019 changes to the extract process. Still yet to see a post-change extract for a -74 with this combination of serial and production date. Or an older extract showing 31x/1975-6. But then again, I haven't been looking very closely lately. If you have either, I'd still be interested to see it.
Considering the caseback is after the date the watch was made... I think you can argue the caseback was swapped at some point.

I think Omega was swapping -71’s to make them more sellable. Either by being shipped back( later extract date) or by sending out CB’s to retailers(original extract date).
 
WurstEver
Posts
441
Likes
1,671
Foo2rama Foo2rama
Considering the caseback is after the date the watch was made... I think you can argue the caseback was swapped at some point.

I think Omega was swapping -71’s to make them more sellable. Either by being shipped back( later extract date) or by sending out CB’s to retailers(original extract date).

But I think we've discussed this before: Check the dial. Also a -74, yes? Would you hypothesise that these fairly common 31x/1971 -74s all had both dial and case back swapped? Remember, these are the ones with the early production dates, so if we go with the explanation above then this is also supposed to have happened en masse at ADs?

It seems more parsimonious to hypothesise oddities in the way these have been documented, wouldn't you agree?
XkOIlo.jpg

Credit again to @ndgal for the photo.
 
ndgal
Posts
2,306
Likes
5,640
Foo2rama Foo2rama
Considering the caseback is after the date the watch was made... I think you can argue the caseback was swapped at some point.
Nothing was swapped at any point.
This particular watch came to me from the original owner. The watch was untouched and never even opened before it got to my hands.
Came with Original papers with no serial number filled in but with a UK AD stamp. (sure enough, extract came back with delivery to the UK so you even know the papers were original to the watch).

The 31.XXX.XXX serial range with the 145.022-71/74 references is full of oddities.
Threads like this one put things in order little by little as more info and more examples with similar "Inconsistencies" (or should I say consistencies) pop up and documented.
 
WurstEver
Posts
441
Likes
1,671
ndgal ndgal
Nothing was swapped at any point.
This particular watch came to me from the original owner. The watch was untouched and never even opened before it got to my hands.
Came with Original papers with no serial number filled in but with a UK AD stamp. (sure enough, extract came back with delivery to the UK so you even know the papers were original to the watch).

The 31.XXX.XXX serial range with the 145.022-71/74 references is full of oddities.
Threads like this one put things in order little by little as more info and more examples with similar "Inconsistencies" (or should I say consistencies) pop up and documented.

Cheers @ndgal. This watch does indeed appear to be a great example of how these early-serial -74s with 1971 extracts likely left the factory in exactly the configuration that we find them. 👍
 
padders
Posts
9,936
Likes
15,609
WurstEver WurstEver
Cheers @ndgal. This watch does indeed appear to be a great example of how these early-serial -74s with 1971 extracts likely left the factory in exactly the configuration that we find them. 👍
And logically they left factory in 1974/5 and the extracts are wrong.

btw I love the sentence "It seems more parsimonious to hypothesise oddities in the way these have been documented, wouldn't you agree?" if I was clever enough to fathom it out I would likely agree!
 
padders
Posts
9,936
Likes
15,609
The smoking gun will be when we find one of these with filled in papers. Not sure what to think if purchase date is pre '74!
 
ndgal
Posts
2,306
Likes
5,640
padders padders
The smoking gun will be when we find one of these with filled in papers. Not sure what to think if purchase date is pre '74!
I've only seen one watch with filled papers that were prior to the extract production date and that was the Phillips Auctions' Ed White a couple of years ago... 😉
 
12 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

Aludic

27xxxxxx serial Speedmaster 145.022-74's might be original after all

Aludic Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
krogerfoot
krogerfoot
Posts
19
Views
1K
Ron_W

A Puzzle ; can we connect these 4 names to this Speedmaster 145.022 ?

Ron_W Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
Ron_W
Ron_W
Posts
11
Views
2K
soda-fabbrica

Speedmaster 145.022-74 ST - auction: views welcomed

soda-fabbrica Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
soda-fabbrica
soda-fabbrica
Posts
26
Views
4K
C

Omega Speedmaster 145.022 69ST

Crowe Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
pdxleaf
pdxleaf
Posts
24
Views
1K
S

Speedmaster 145.022 with swapped movement

sfhikr Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
ibis888
ibis888
Posts
19
Views
662
Omarrye

145.022-74 back from Archer Watches

Omarrye Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
lillatroll
lillatroll
Posts
36
Views
7K