Speedy Mk2 Extracts

Recently I had a discussion with the Omega heritage team regarding a Speedy Mark 2 that I bought. I had requested an extract, but my order was cancelled because the archives indicated that the movement serial number of the watch was associated with a different reference.

Before going further, I should say that the seller I bought the watch from has been incredibly helpful, patient, and accommodating throughout. When I informed them of the apparent mismatch between serial and reference numbers, they offered immediately and unconditionally to take the watch back and provide a full refund. They also granted me as much time as I needed to make the inquiries described below. I couldn't have asked for more as a buyer and I will be recommending this seller without reservation in the future.

Anyway, on with the story. Those of you who have seen the following post or others that reference it may have some idea of where this is going: https://omegaforums.net/threads/speedmaster-mkii-reference-query.27859/#post-310775

The Mark 2 I bought is a 145.034 in stainless steel, pictured here:


Since @Archer provided the information cited above from the Omega database, it has been pretty well accepted here on OF that reference 145.034 came in a range of metals, including stainless steel. However, when I asked for further information regarding why my request for an extract had been denied, including what reference the Omega records had for the serial number I gave, correspondence from the heritage team included the following (I have omitted any identifying information from these message snippets):


I'm most grateful that the heritage team member took the time to respond to my requests for clarification. It's a testament to their commitment to the brand's history and community that they engaged in this conversation at all. I wouldn't typically post the contents of one-on-one messages to the forum and I do not intend to complain about the views or conduct of this Omega team member by doing so. On the contrary, their conduct during our exchange was impeccable. Rather, I post these comments because I think this conversation is of general interest as it has made clear a fundamental difference of opinion about these watches between the community and the Omega team.

The clear implication of these statements is that the "official" Omega line is that the Speedmaster Mark 2 reference 145.034 was a gold plated model (only) and the reference 145.014 was a stainless steel model (only). This appears to be in direct contradiction to the accepted wisdom of the OF membership, as mentioned earlier.

Because of this, I am unable to obtain an extract for the watch, I'm out 120 CHF, but more importantly I am left to doubt the status of what I and the seller initially believed to be a watch that was in its correct configuration. So my questions to the OF community are: Do we still have general agreement that the position of the heritage team on this matter is wrong? Have many members here owned or otherwise come across stainless steel 145.034s (perhaps weight of numbers could make a difference here)? And has anyone ever succeeded in having an extract issued for a stainless steel Mark 2 145.034?

Yes, that's what's kind of funny and paradoxical about the situation. I think maybe I could fudge it in that way if the primary goal was just to obtain the documentation. But of course, I wouldn't do that because I'm looking for a watch that is in the same configuration in which it left the factory and which is documented correctly.

Question is, is that even possible for a stainless steel 145.034 given the stance that Omega has taken?

Did you ever consider submitting a request for an extract?

Indeed, thanks. No mention of extracts amongst those or any of the others I found. But very happy to hear differently if I've missed something.

Yes, I am incredibly grateful that the Omega team member took the time to respond. Maybe it was in part a consolation prize for having spent money on an extract, but not getting one issued.

In any case, I should reinforce the point that none of this is a complaint on my part about that response. Rather, I just think it's interesting to lay out this difference of opinion between the OF community and Omega's "official" line in more stark relief than has been done before and it will help me with my decision making to get the current lay of the land here on OF.

You've put your finger right on one of the interesting things about the correspondence from Omega in the original post: They claim that there's no such thing as an ST 145.034.

If you check the back of the lugs some yellow tarnish ? Maybe a gold plated de-plated explain everything.

Paul

Interesting thought, Paul. But I don't see any indication that this one started its life as a gold-plated model. In general, the case appears to be showing its age for sure, but in a pretty honest way that doesn't suggest it's seen any unusual treatment - at least to my eye.