- Posts
- 17,768
- Likes
- 26,941
Foo2rama
··Nowhere near as grumpy as he used to be...Show me the statements. I said I didn't have trouble with serials. I never said my bezels or dials were all right, but the dials are, actually. Movements match the cases and dials. But I never made those claims before. You tend to take a few words and make them into something different. And now you'll speak for EVERYONE else? Good Lord. This is a colossal waste of energy. I choose the right words for a living and do quite well. I know exactly what I've stated here. I also NEVER claimed MWO was wrong. Read my words. I've said it is a great guide but simply can't have definitive answers where there are no such answers. You all should start a thread just about that book. It's time to have an honest discussion about the weight it is being given in this hobby. I believe the writers did the best they could given limited info. Yes, Omega gave them some access, but OMEGA also doesn't have many of the answers. I know you all want things to be black and white, but they just aren't. Those watches were built by humans pulling parts from bins, and if there were older or newer parts in a bin on a given day, who knows which dial went on which watch....within reason. And when you go back to the 2915 and 2998, it's even murkier.
I said it appears that way in every post I made. I also stated no one appears to be attacking you, but asking questions with the intent I stated. As someone that does this for a living, you should see that there is an encoding decoding issue happening here.
Your comment here is a prime example, your claiming transitional watches are more common then normally accepted which is a pretty bold statement to male. I would wager that many people here see a small problem with the logic in that statement. Under that logic you would expect to see more earlier pieces on later watches, instead you see almost exclusively later pieces on earlier watches. This is more easily explained by the newer pieces being added during service. Lets look at a newer reference for this as an example. The 145.022-74 is normally accepted to not have a step dial and only have the domed dial with the step dial font. ie non-rop "S" drop "r." (but I argue it's OK). But how can you explain the number of -74's with the step dial? The odds here are that early 74's had carry over parts from the -71 series or earlier, as odds of it being replaced with an earlier dial are fairly low. Conversely a -71 with a domed dial would be considered wrong or replaced at a later date with a newer dial. Data supports this as -71 are not found with the -74/early76 early font domed dial, only with later drop "S" dials from -76 production and later. Yes I understand that this is just one example, but this extends to many of the other inconsistencies, and is the logic used to determine what is correct and not, as well as using period marketing material and many examples of known unmolested watches which do not have earlier pieces on later watches.
