Here is my other 007. Bl
Perhaps a better P-word in the case of the 176.001 in question is Pre-Series. Many catalogue and dealer brochures contains early design images where all feature details perhaps did not make it into final production.
As the catalog page shared by @cvalue13 contains hand writing saying "replaced by 176.007 in 1972" I take it as an indication that 176.001 predates ref 176.007.
As it was uttered by Omega, and not me in the first place, I feel somewhat protected. 馃槻馃榾
What was the person's name? ...he didn't work at STS by chance, did he? Was it Chris?
馃榾
(I know, completely different situation)
The answer was only signed "Your OMEGA Team"
Not STS nor Chris, I am not in the UK, so my question was sent directly to Bienne.
The answer was only signed "Your OMEGA Team".
This go back to the thread were the guy claims prototype, one off Friday special all because a guy Steve then Chris at STS told him..
https://omegaforums.net/threads/omega-speedy-jedi.21205/
Grab a coffee to read anyone who hasn't read this thread....
As those who have researched these will see, it has the original "pointed" minute hand, and also the early dial without applied indexes.
I don't really know which case reference came first.
This particular issue I think is pretty clearly settled: the .001 was a relatively rare predecessor to the .007: many Omega historical docs note that the .007 replaced the .001, the AJTT notes the same, and finally there are the not uncommon case-backs striking the .001 reference and re-stamped with the .007 reference (which not only indicated the conclusion, but was also not uncommon for Omega when transitioning and using up stock case backs for a newer reference).
The watch clearly isn't a 176.001, and I assume that it isn't even a 'transitional' 176.001/176.007 (or your case-back would have a stricken-through 176.001 followed by the 176.007). This being the case (no pun intended), your watch is otherwise a normal (if early) 176.007, at which point in time in Omega history cal.1040 movement itself should have been all sorted out. On this rationale, it's unclear why either the watch in general or even the movement itself would be a "prototype."
That being said, there seem to be some remaining possibilities:
(1) Even thought Omega had already settled on the 176.007 watch generally, at some point Omega made some "prototype" changes to the movement only (thereby resulting in a watch that is otherwise 'typical,' but with a 'prototype' movement)
(2) Your otherwise typical (if early) 176.007 has a movement that is otherwise typical but that at some point had the rotor replaced (with such replacement rotor sourced from either a movement that itself was a 'prototype' or instead from a lone 'prototype' rotor of some sort)
(3) Some mix-up in Omega caused someone to mis-number/stamp an otherwise typical rotor/movement
The possibilities above, if resolvable, may be best addressed by a watch maker with experience with cal.1040's, to give the movement/rotor a jaundiced eye for either (A) something about the rotor that is atypical, or (B) something about the entire movement that is atypical. @Archer ?
Regardless, it's a great looking, early .007 with - at worst - an 'interesting' story/question about the rotor numbering.
[EDIT: Clearly, when I reference "Omega" making changes to the rotor/movement, this relates back to Lemania]
Having browsed through the various catalog shots of 176.007s it seems to me as if the needle minute hand was "first". My best guess is that most, if not all, early 001s or 007s with the stick minute hand have had them replaced during a service?
In the 1975 catalog I have seen, the needle hands are gone. I assume that at this time the needle hands was no longer in stock.
This also may explain why serviced specimens are often seen with the stick hands as their first major service would normally not have been before this time (1971/72 + 4-5 years interval).
I have learned that replacing the hands was standard procedure during service also back then. Some watchmakers may have given their clients the option of replacing hands, and some (fortunately for us now) would have taken the cheapest way out and told him to leave the old ones on.
As for the dial layouts I fully support that the various designs hav co-existed, possibly from the start. However it seems from the catalog pictures that the flat/matte dial style does not appear in the later catalogs.
I guess we should also not rule out that since replacing the hands was "popular", also replacing the dial in the purpose of retaining luminous properties was quite common. In this case it can explain why 001s and also early 007s are seen with "later" dial styles.
I think another more likely scenario is Lemania mixed up the production of this rotor along with mixed up serial stamps. There are two very much different rotors for the 1040 with the R serial, many of them are very old to be a replacement, especially with a robust ball bearing system like that. The no-R 5 digit serial is indeed rarer though, so if it was prototype, it was Lemania's unintendedly. A few new replacement rotors I've seen actually have no serial at all, but it may be a shared part with the 1041.
It's a possibility. But I highly doubt it as Lemania themselves did never use an R serial prefix, and 5 digit Lemania serial numbers was ended in the mid 1940s.
In the early 1970s Lemania was issuing serial numbers in the 25xxxxx to 28xxxxx range.
Combined with the fact that Omega trained personell from that period have confirmed the "R-serial" practice as replacement parts I tend towards buying that as an explanation.
A high number of "R-serial" rotors could imply a design flaw on early rotors leading to a routine/guarantee replacement having been made?
Lemania produced for many different brands and their record keeping history was known to be not very reliable.
The 3 rivet ones also have never been seen with normal serial either. They look just like the rotor used on the 1341 movement, which I've seen some had serial stamped some didn't.
Your non-R 5 digit serial is rare on the 1040, but on other Omega movements, the non-typical serials include both R and no R, as well as no serial, which is the only thing I've seen sold separately as parts.
