Well done and found.

In all honesty I can see how this mistake happened. Before reading the rest of this thread that description had me fooled that it was a "Omega Biel Museum certified" prototype.

Then again, a watch journalist should verify and validate , especially when the claims are extraordinary.

If it is as Stefan Muser wrote in the email to @simonsays then that description is blatantly misleading.

 

He should also actually look at the pictures of the watches he is reviewing...the inner tachometer is clearly a separate ring not part of the dial.

 

True , very true. I sent him a (hopefully) polite email with the link to this thread and a copy of the auction house response.

Let's see if this gets a response

 

Oh lord.... A great example of “let’s write an article about it just based on a few pictures i got from the auction house” and “let’s write something good, there might be a kickback for me in it pushing it to the public”..

 

The best part of the article are the comments LMAO

 

Please don't get to personal by attacking people, not so nice according to my opinion. People do make mistakes and they also have to learn. But I fully agree though that Hodinkee as one of the most respected forums (not by all, but by most of the people) should do some more due diligence such as for instance a double check by some of their more senior editors.

Great comment now below the article: Upon further communication with Dr Crott concerning the Speedmaster, there doesn’t appear to be any actual confirmation from Omega that this is a legitimate prototype. Also of concern, is that this could have easily been built with parts that have been for sale on the past couple years. “Prototype” Huguenin-Freres twisted life cases with rotating bezels have popped up in many places, and a batch of these 0000 bridges was for a sale a while back as well. Also, the dial looks like a standard 69-71 step dial, which looks cut off by the tachymeter ring. This is one to avoid absent of any better info.

Perhaps Omega will buy the watch for a hideous amount of money to keep the mystery or mania alive

 

I put the VAP on this right around $2.5K

 

Well... If the comment you posted above would have been made by the writer of the article, then i could have shared your opinion.

Now the comment is from a well respected member here on the forum down in the readers comment field and not in the article itself, just to call out to anyone reading the article to do their own DD prior to bidding anything on this.

So this quote still stands “If you pay attention to the vintage market, you'll know that wildly configured iconic watches of dubious authenticity and provenance are often sold as prototypes, with only the word of one supposed expert to support such a notion. That's why this watch is noteworthy – it's not just a prototype, but a confirmed prototype. Biel’s Omega Museum has corroborated its prototype status, even going as far as to inform prospective bidders that its movement numbers further confirm it to be a prototype.”

So at least not yet any efforts shown by the writer to correct his view and the outright questionable, if not false statements he is stating in the article.

One can make errors, yes. But as you read the statement above, even an novice journalist should at this point need to make sure that what he writes is true and correct, to check it as you suggested with an senior writer and not solely rely on the auction house statements. Especially when this house has a reputation to sometimes have “questionable” descriptions on some of their items on sale.

And Omega would never buy a completely cobbled up franker, as there also is no mania or mystery in this item.

But, I would love to see a picture of the dial, shouldn’t be that difficult as it is a “special” watch in need of some confirmation. So hopefully the auction house and Hodinkee steps up and provides this for any bidder on the watch. Or then they should just pull the watch.

 

Yeah, quite a few similar cases on ebay... weird.

 

...and looking at the one OP posted about again... Looks like the dial is stuffed under that (built-in?) tachy ring. Dunno what to make of that.

Also, does Omega ever reuse Reference numbers? I know there can be a lot of variation within a reference... or does the "CK" differentiate it from a "non-CK"? I really don't know.

 

look at the references 2254 and CK2254
totally different watches

 

So the reference numbers can be reused, if differentiated in some way. Learned something new!

 

Oh, I get that part. I was just surprised that there's a CK2413 (dress watch?) and a prototype speedmaster 2413..(both in steel as a minor detail)... Which is so unlike any other speedmaster reference - well, maybe not any other, like 2915 or 2998...

I guess what it amounts to is that this watch confuses the heck out of me.

 

I mean, personally, I'd rather one of these..



From https://omegaforums.net/threads/hidden-gems-from-the-nasa-photo-archive.27812/page-14#post-689357

I thought there was better pics of a black dial variant but I cant find any..

 

If you search with ref 2254, Google shows mostly the newer Seamaster 300 Chronometer which is totally different
to the CK-2254 Chronometer from the 40ies. That's what i wanted to say here.

 

And even today, several days after these discussions and heavy and straightforward commentary on their own story on their own site, they have done nothing to correct their article or even comment on the public suspicion for it not to be an prototype.

So as I stated above, this is only to be seen as a “favour” by the author to push a very questionable piece for the auction house, nothing else.

So buyer beware and reader beware when looking at these two sites. Hodinkee is now more solidly fixed on my shit list.