Speedmaster Extract. Production Date?

gdupree · Jan 7, 2018

Hey guys,

Picked up my Extract of the Archives yesterday for my 145.022-74 (thanks @thatonewatchdude). Nothing too out of the ordinary, except for the production date. Moonwatch Only puts the serial number 31620489 on the early side for the reference, but within range of 31.312.xxx - 39.185xxx. Speedmaster101 corroborates these numbers. However, my extract states a production date of June 24, 1971. What's the deal?

mr_yossarian · Jan 7, 2018

Well..you might guessed it already. Can't be a 74, maybe only the caseback is.

gdupree · Jan 7, 2018

mr_yossarian
Well..you might guessed it already. Can't be a 74, maybe only the caseback is.

That would be the obvious answer. But if that is case why then would the major authorities agree that this serial is within range for the reference? Are serial numbers non-chronological, or something?

abrod520 · Jan 7, 2018

gdupree
Are serial numbers non-chronological, or something?

Yep, in the first half of the 1970s we see a huge range of serial numbers between 145.022-71s, -74s, and even some -76s. My guess is that yours is either a -69 straight writing or -71 with the back and dial swapped at some long-ago service, perhaps 1974-75.

eugeneandresson · Jan 7, 2018

You SN falls within

1969-1971, ST145.022-69 Pre Moon, Caliber 861

1975-1976, ST145.022-74, Caliber 861

1971-1974, ST145.022-71, Caliber 861

gdupree · Jan 7, 2018

abrod520
Yep, in the first half of the 1970s we see a huge range of serial numbers between 145.022-71s, -74s, and even some -76s. My guess is that yours is either a -69 straight writing or -71 with the back and dial swapped at some long-ago service, perhaps 1974-75.

Sounds like a good theory to me. Was Omega in the habit of changing case backs during a service? Certainly it would not have needed replacing after only a few years, and I doubt Omega could have cared less about making it correct. For that matter, I don't really see why the dial would have needed replacing after only 3-4 years either, but sure...

My only lasting question would be: How do we know that a '71 movement never made it into a -74? Although that does seem like a pretty big gap, and I would doubt that would happen. If not, I wonder what the earliest produced movement was that ended up in a -74. Was the 31.312.xxx that MWO cites produced in '74, despite my serial number being made 3 years earlier? That is also a pretty big gap to swallow, but I suppose that is the "huge range" that you're talking about. I guess there's really no way to really tell if a movement is correct for a reference, short of ordering an extract.

Very interesting stuff! I would love to find a -71 step dial and case back to put on this one, if it most likely is actually from that reference,

BenBagbag · Jan 7, 2018

eugeneandresson
You SN falls within

1969-1971, ST145.022-69 Pre Moon, Caliber 861

1975-1976, ST145.022-74, Caliber 861

1971-1974, ST145.022-71, Caliber 861

This is according to MWO. As you can see, - 74 have the largest range of serial numbers according to then. The fact that you find some with 1971 production dates is one of the questions that pops up these days but I think the authors of MWO believe that - 74 does have this wide of a range.

There definitely needs to be more tight research to narrow ranges or confirm ranges but for now there is no reason for you to make any changes to your watch.

Dial, I assume, is a - 74 dome dial?

Foo2rama · Jan 7, 2018

I think the MWO numbers, and speedmaster101as well as the Maddox numbers might need to be rethought. Ilovemyspeedmaster has pretty compelling evidence now that the ranges are not as broad as once thought. I think a lot of those earlier charts used examples like yours that did not have an extract and had been serviced with later parts or had part swaps.

Is yours a dome or step dial?

BenBagbag · Jan 7, 2018

I'd love to hear from MWO authors (@lowen @speedy4ever) about extracts like this and whether they believe ranges have changed or if they have seen ilovemyspeedmaster.com

I see this question come up more and more. Were there just tons of movements lying around in the 70's which were used for many different references?

Assuming that the watch is original (-74) according to MWO, what is the story of the watch if produced in 1971? Does produced mean the whole watch was assembled on June 24th 1971 and they were already using domed dials then, or maybe that's just when the movement was made and it sat in Omega for 2 or 3 years before being cased and given a dial? Were they making 74's before 74?

Just a few questions... Boils down to what is the story of a 1971 watch having - 74 parts.

eugeneandresson · Jan 7, 2018

Short of someone gathering every individually produced movements serial number AND the full caseback sub-reference (‘69, ‘71, ‘74 etc) that was attached to the case when it was assembled I would love to hear proposals to try and overcome the fact that, during this period of history (which was pretty much the time when the quartz crisis was happening) movements within a certain range made it randomly into 3 sub-references...(hint : there is no solution, it is what it is, unless one has a time machine and can go back and force Omega do it differently).

And even if someone was able to get every single produced watch movement SN and caseback sub-reference information explicitly, I would be willing to put my money on the fact that it wouldn't make any difference with respect to the SN ranges whatsoever (other than the fact that one would be able to query their exact watch and know their movement came with an e.g. '74 caseback directly from Omega) as there would still be the same randomness.

BenBagbag
I'd love to hear from MWO authors (@@lowen @@speedy4ever) about extracts like this and whether they believe ranges have changed or if they have seen ilovemyspeedmaster.com

ilovemyspeedmaster gratefully uses MWO tables with their permission (and they warned exactly about this period)...every single query is run against their tables, and results accumulated, hence there are 3 answers for that serial number.

I beleive the OP's problem is the same problem I have with all extracts : no extract gives an actual case-back sub-reference, i.e. an extract merely says 145.022, and not 145.022-74. If it did, there would be no question here, other than the assembly date, which is odd as he says, for a '74.

Foo2rama · Jan 7, 2018

eugeneandresson
Short of someone gathering every individually produced movements serial number AND the full caseback sub-reference (‘69, ‘71, ‘74 etc) that was attached to the case when it was assembled I would love to hear proposals to try and overcome the fact that, during this period of history (which was pretty much the time when the quartz crisis was happening) movements within a certain range made it randomly into 3 sub-references...(hint : there is no solution, it is what it is, unless one has a time machine and can go back and force Omega do it differently).

And even if someone was able to get every single produced watch movement SN and caseback sub-reference information explicitly, I would be willing to put my money on the fact that it wouldn't make any difference with respect to the SN ranges whatsoever (other than the fact that one would be able to query their exact watch and know their movement came with an e.g. '74 caseback directly from Omega) as there would still be the same randomness.

ilovemyspeedmaster gratefully uses MWO tables with their permission (and they warned exactly about this period)...every single query is run against their tables, and results accumulated, hence there are 3 answers for that serial number.

I beleive the OP's problem is the same problem I have with all extracts : no extract gives an actual case-back sub-reference, i.e. an extract merely says 145.022, and not 145.022-74. If it did, there would be no question here, other than the assembly date, which is odd as he says, for a '74.

I’m not saying the MWO wrong. Just curious if the dates were compiled by caseback or extract?

In the case of the OP watch an extract date of June 71 would mean a -74 caseback is incorrect right?

Esp ilovemyspeedmaster determines a July 71 production.

eugeneandresson · Jan 7, 2018

Foo2rama
I’m not saying the MWO wrong. Just curious if the dates were compiled by caseback or extract?

My guess is they were compiled by the source of extract data (and perhaps they had access to sub-reference info too, as sub-reference info is never in the extracts)...

Foo2rama
In the case of the OP watch an extract date of 71 would mean a -74 caseback is incorrect right?

as no extracts say what the actual sub-reference of the watch is all we can go on is the info that you and I and most folk accept, making a -74 caseback way to early in 71...

Edit : Either the extract is wrong (maybe Omega used ilovemyspeedmaster to date it 😜), or the perhaps the watch lay around fully assembled for a couple of years but they switched a newer caseback when it finally left the floor...or or or...

BenBagbag · Jan 7, 2018

So then.... Why does MWO accept the serial as in range for a - 74? That is what we have to rethink or explain IMO...

eugeneandresson · Jan 7, 2018

BenBagbag
Why does MWO accept the serial as in range for a - 74?

because there were serials in that range put into watches between the years 74~76, and the extracts should give those dates accordingly...

Edit : a bunch of movements (or bridges) that were manufactured/stamped in, say 1969, were not all used in 1969/70 due to a massive decline in sales (there was a quartz crisis happening, people were buying quartz watches despite the moonlanding). These movements took maybe 6 or 8 years to be used up (instead of 2 or so when sales were normal before/after this period). They were picked randomly, and put into watches. Thus they are acceptable, because they happen to exist in these sub-references. They are just assembled into watches at different times. And this makes dating them difficult based on serial number alone.

gdupree · Jan 8, 2018

BenBagbag
So then.... Why does MWO accept the serial as in range for a - 74? That is what we have to rethink or explain IMO...

This was why I was wondering if movement serial numbers were actually chronological. For instance, my SN 31.620.489 was "made" (see: assembled. more on that below) in June 1971, but does that necessarily mean that SN 31.620.488 couldn't have been made in 1974? IF that were the case, it might put the 'range' of SN's belonging to a -74 very wide, but wouldn't mean that all numbers within that range were appropriate for the reference. I would hope there is some chronology to it to these numbers, otherwise these serial numbers would be virtually useless without an extract of the archives... Even though it appears that my case it may still be difficult to determine much even with an extract.

From my understanding based on https://www.fratellowatches.com/omegas-extract-of-the-archives-how-it-works/, the production date indicates the date of assembly of that particular watch, and that the movement itself was delivered at an earlier date. This would lend credibility to the thought that this movement could not have been from a 145.022-74, since (I strongly assume) they were not assembling -74's in mid-1971... But then that would lead us back to the original question of why would most resources accept this serial as within range for a -74?

mr_yossarian · Jan 8, 2018

gdupree
why would most resources accept this serial as within range for a -74?

Because these serials have been used in 74s AND the Archive or EOA state a production in ~1975 upwards. In this case, there is actually no logical explanation why this watch would be a 74.

maxbelg · Jan 9, 2018

Foo2rama
.....Is yours a dome or step dial?

Has this been answered? If it isn't a step-dial I'd assume the case-back and dial were swapped at the same time later in the 70s............

gdupree · Jan 9, 2018

maxbelg
Has this been answered? If it isn't a step-dial I'd assume the case-back and dial were swapped at the same time later in the 70s............

It is a dome dial otherwise all correct for a 74, or so it would seem until now...
.

maxbelg · Jan 9, 2018

gdupree
It is a dome dial otherwise all correct for a 74, or so it would seem until now...
.

Of course the older movement could have been placed into a '74 at some stage and the extract is obviously for the movement........

gdupree · Jan 9, 2018

maxbelg
Of course the older movement could have been placed into a '74 at some stage and the extract is obviously for the movement........

Yes, definitely a possibility.

The main question at this point is why then would most resources claim this serial as in the “correct” range for a 74.

Speedmaster Extract. Production Date?

gdupree

mr_yossarian

gdupree

abrod520

eugeneandresson

gdupree

BenBagbag

Foo2rama

BenBagbag

eugeneandresson

Foo2rama

eugeneandresson

BenBagbag

eugeneandresson

gdupree

mr_yossarian

maxbelg

gdupree

maxbelg

gdupree

Similar threads

Approximate year of production from reference number

Production date for 145.022-68 Transitional

Bought a DSOTM from an AD (new) with 2014 Date of Production

Genuine? Production date? Rough value?

Zenith Chrono 143-6 Production date

New Speedmaster 3861 Side Profile - Production Variances Noted