Very interesting! Can I see a pic. 2 seems to be the beginning of a coincidence, perhaps we should share serials. Ultra rare run of non-AML -68s lol.

 

A surprise column wheel is never a bad thing . Nice pick up!

 

Omega didn't stop using tritium until that time frame, so it's completely possible they had tritium service dials in 1998.

 

I was implying it can't be a stepped-service dial from 20 years ago i.e. step dials stopped round '73 (and my assumption is the service dials followed suite). Sure tritium went on much further

 

Are we sure it's a replacement dial? From that other thread that was linked above @gemini4 had this comment:

 

Yes, we are sure ... gemini4 made that comment when he still thought it was a myth, but since then his accumulated-man-cave-watch-stash has disproved his initial thoughts ...

Edit : https://omegaforums.net/threads/transition-to-the-transitional.47466/

 

Well I had a 50-50 chance at commenting on the right parameter. Heads you win tails I lose apparently.

It's common knowledge that stepped dials were no put into new watches around 1973, but is there evidence that stepped replacement dials stopped at the point also? If there is I don't think I've seen it.

Cheers, Al

 

From memory my serial starts 2732.... one of the very last 321.

 

Yes the early Tritium 321 service dials have a step but no aml I put it around 76 or so for the service. Its basically a -71 dial with long indicies and 321 dial feet.

Later ones would have had a dome and AML. At least these are my reads of the service dials based on font.

 

OK, taking a step back an digesting some of the very helpful cogitations on here makes me think the following may have occurred here.

Reviewing the notes I took of our chat, I note that the seller purchased it second hand sometime in the mid 1970s, from a jewellers in the North West of England, (I think he said Prestons who are still in Wilmslow though I need to recheck that). I now think this watch had a service sometime prior to this sale and for whatever reason a then contemporary service dial was fitted. The service in the 90s was a red herring as the dial and hands look properly aged and I don't think these would have been fitted at that point in any event, in addition the seller didn't think any parts had been exchanged in his ownership and didn't strike me as dishonest or forgetful. This is in part rather disappointing since a perfect 145.012-68 sounds like a rare and desirable thing to own (though I note that the SP101 prices are about the same as the preceding -67) but I bought the watch on the mistaken belief it was a -69 so some noob tax is maybe due (though I wouldn't consider myself a total noob on these).

I may apply for an extract in case anything revolutionary comes to light, the existence of another 145.012-68 with a similar dial is suggestive but I may be clutching at straws since the hands fitted suggest a major service at some point and it is more likely just a coincidence.

Whatever the outcome, I love the watch which is the main thing after all.

 

Great catch! I love these finds where it's clearly a genuine watch but closer inspection raises as many questions as answers.

Incidentally, an extract won't tell you the sub ref will it? It will just confirm 145.012?

 

This thread is also a great read.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/transition-to-the-transitional.47466/

 

No I agree but it may throw up something unexpected and it will at least give me some confidence that this isn't a total Franken. My last extract for my Ed White showed NAAFI delivery while while hardly earth shattering was pleasing to think there was a hint towards a military connection.

 

If you get the chance, could you post a pic of your dial, would be interesting to me my watch's twin.

 

Many watches, despite careful selection, hold surprises, sometimes good, sometimes not. Overall, you clearly ‘lucked out’ with the 321 movement, looking unabused, a crisp case and back and a really nice DON bezel.

I’d wear it with pride. Nice score.

 

Oh one other thing. I would really like my Pre-Moon to be actually chronologically Pre-Moon ie delivered pre July 20th 1969 and a -68 has a much better chance. The extract will confirm either way I guess!

@eugeneandresson’s wonderful resource has a date estimate of Oct 1968 for my serial.

 

This way or other it seems like you got a pretty good deal, I love the 321 chrono pusher action way more than 861.

 

Interesting. All things considered, I think I prefer the 861’s pusher action. There’s a greater ‘mechanical certainty’ that I feel when engaging the 861’s versus the 321’s. The 321’s feel ‘more delicate’.

This is based on half a dozen 321s and more than that many 861’s or 1861’s.

Curious what others think.

 

On balance I prefer the 321, it feels more refined and a bit less agricultural but I also have a F Piguet based 3313 movement Speedy and that has a nicer action still. Not being an astronaut or racing driver I can tolerate a little delicacy. There ain’t a lot in it though really.

 

Well in general, column wheel results in lighter more delicate click action often associated with more high end chronograph, 861 feels more tough and pedestrian in comparison.