The "X-Reference" Mystery: Apollo XI 20th Anniversary with Gold Cal.863 & 345.0808 Case

yumenon · Apr 6, 2026

[Mod note - English translation provided by member below]

yumenon · Apr 6, 2026

Headline: Seeking info on this unique "X" Reference Speedmaster identified by Omega Ginza

Hi everyone,

I recently brought my Speedmaster to the Omega Customer Service in Ginza, Japan, and they identified it with a very unusual Ref. X0031785.

Here are the specs of this piece:

・Dial: Apollo XI 20th Anniversary (T Swiss Made T)

・Movement: Amber Gold Cal.863 (Serial 4827xxxx)

・Case: ST 345.0808 (Factory Display Back)

・Note: Came with a Spanish certificate No.1532.

As shown in the 2026 Omega service document, the technician noted it as "APOLLO XI (unnumbered)" and explicitly distinguished it from the standard 20th-anniversary model (which usually has Cal.861 and a solid back).

Is this a known prototype or a special delivery for the Spanish market? The "X" reference and "Unnumbered" status make me think this is a significant historical piece.

Any insights from the experts here would be greatly appreciated!

yumenon · Apr 6, 2026

Headline: Forget everything you know about the 1989 Apollo XI 20th Anniversary.

I’ve just unearthed a Speedmaster that defies all standard catalogs. This isn't your average "1 of 2000" piece.

The Facts:

The Face: Original Apollo XI 20th Anniversary dial (T Swiss Made T).

The Heart: Stunning Amber Gold Cal.863 (Serial 4827xxxx).

The Body: ST 345.0808 case with factory display back.

The Provenance: Accompanied by a Spanish certificate No.1532.

The Smoking Gun:

I took this to the Omega Customer Service in Ginza today. They didn't just call it a Speedmaster; they identified it as a unique Ref. X0031785 and explicitly labeled it as "APOLLO XI (unnumbered)" in their official 2026 documents.

This is a factory-certified "X-Reference" hybrid. A pre-series prototype? A special VIP delivery for Spain?

Take a look at the movement and the official papers. Have you ever seen an "X-Ref" unnumbered Apollo in the wild before? I’ll wait.

#Speedmaster #XReference #Cal863 #ApolloXI #Moonwatch #SpeedyTuesday

Archer · Apr 6, 2026

Well, the serial number comes up as this on the Omega Extranet:

Serial number: 48272416
Article ref: 35925000

yumenon · Apr 6, 2026

Archer
Well, the serial number comes up as this on the Omega Extranet:

Serial number: 48272416
Article ref: 35925000

That’s exactly what’s so interesting! Yes, the Extranet shows 3592.50.00, but look at my physical watch: It’s a 20th Anniversary Apollo XI piece.

Even the official Omega customer service
in Ginza noted the discrepancy. While the system says 3592.50, they officially identified and accepted it as 'Ref: X0031785' and 'APOLLO XI (unnumbered)' in their 2026 service document.

Why would a 3592.50 serial be assigned to a 20th-anniversary dial/set from the factory? This 'X' reference seems to be the key to this official hybrid. Thoughts?"

la_lusigne · Apr 6, 2026

This is a run of the mill 3592.50 with an 863 caliber.

Omega made 2 numbered variants of the 863 in engraved cases. The very 1st 863 variant is the copper colored one. This variant was produced to 1000 pieces with a number engraved on the caseback.
It had a 1447 bracelet / 805 endlinks.

The 2nd edition of the 863 has moved on from the copper color and was produced in a more gold tone. The 2nd variant of the 863 was also delivered in 1000 pieces, also numbered on the case back.
It had 1450 bracelet / 808 endlinks

Following these 2, a new variant came to the market but omega didn’t limit the production and didn’t engrave numbers. The watch you present here is one of these.
You have a 17 jewel version which is an earlier model as omega improved the movement with an additional jewel later on but still on the same variant as you have.
It had a 1479 bracelet / 812 endlinks.

Later ones have an 18 jewel movement and are on either 1479 bracelet / 812 endlinks for earlier versions or 1499 bracelet for later ones.

yumenon · Apr 6, 2026

la_lusigne
This is a run of the mill 3592.50 with an 863 caliber.

Omega made 2 numbered variants of the 863 in engraved cases. The very 1st 863 variant is the copper colored one. This variant was produced to 1000 pieces with a number engraved on the caseback.
It had a 1447 bracelet / 805 endlinks.

The 2nd edition of the 863 has moved on from the copper color and was produced in a more gold tone. The 2nd variant of the 863 was also delivered in 1000 pieces, also numbered on the case back.
It had 1450 bracelet / 808 endlinks

Following these 2, a new variant came to the market but omega didn’t limit the production and didn’t engrave numbers. The watch you present here is one of these.
You have a 17 jewel version which is an earlier model as omega improved the movement with an additional jewel later on but still on the same variant as you have.
It had a 1479 bracelet / 812 endlinks.

Later ones have an 18 jewel movement and are on either 1479 bracelet / 812 endlinks for earlier versions or 1499 bracelet for later ones.

I appreciate the detailed history of the 3592.50! However, the 'Run of the Mill' theory doesn't explain the reality of this specific piece.

If this is just a standard 3592.50, why does it have the Apollo XI 20th Anniversary dial (T Swiss Made T)? And more importantly, why did Omega Ginza officially categorize it as 'Ref: X0031785' and 'APOLLO XI (unnumbered)' in their 2026 documents?

The Spanish certificate (No.1532) that came with it further complicates the 'Standard 3592.50' story. Omega's internal database clearly distinguishes this as an 'X' reference, not a 3592.50, despite what the Extranet might suggest.

Does Omega often put 20th-anniversary dials on 'Run of the Mill' 3592.50s and assign them special X-references? I doubt it. This feels like a factory-sanctioned anomaly.

la_lusigne · Apr 6, 2026

yumenon
I appreciate the detailed history of the 3592.50! However, the 'Run of the Mill' theory doesn't explain the reality of this specific piece.

If this is just a standard 3592.50, why does it have the Apollo XI 20th Anniversary dial (T Swiss Made T)? And more importantly, why did Omega Ginza officially categorize it as 'Ref: X0031785' and 'APOLLO XI (unnumbered)' in their 2026 documents?

The Spanish certificate (No.1532) that came with it further complicates the 'Standard 3592.50' story. Omega's internal database clearly distinguishes this as an 'X' reference, not a 3592.50, despite what the Extranet might suggest.

Does Omega often put 20th-anniversary dials on 'Run of the Mill' 3592.50s and assign them special X-references? I doubt it. This feels like a factory-sanctioned anomaly.

I believe the number you’re referring to (ref:x0031785) is an internal Omega service/repair ticket reference number assigned by the authorized service center. It has nothing to do with the watch in itself.

Archer · Apr 6, 2026

yumenon
The Spanish certificate (No.1532) that came with it further complicates the 'Standard 3592.50' story. Omega's internal database clearly distinguishes this as an 'X' reference, not a 3592.50, despite what the Extranet might suggest.

Well, how did they do that exactly?

gatorcpa · Apr 6, 2026

I'm going to refer to this portion of the document you provided:

The case reference number, caliber, serial number and model line are clearly mentioned. Even says "Unumbered" as a comment.

All of this lines up with what has been told to you by the other commenters in this thread. It is a special edition for the 20th Anniversary of the Apollo XI mission, nothing more.

Hope this helps,
gatorcpa

yumenon · Apr 6, 2026

la_lusigne
I believe the number you’re referring to (ref:x0031785) is an internal Omega service/repair ticket reference number assigned by the authorized service center. It has nothing to do with the watch in itself.

I understand your skepticism, but in this case, 'X0031785' is clearly treated as the Model Reference by Omega, not just a service ticket number.

If it were just a 'run of the mill' 3592.50, the technician would have no reason to manually override or add a unique X-reference and label it as 'APOLLO XI (unnumbered)' in the official notes.

Again, why does a 'standard' 3592.50 serial come with an Apollo XI 20th dial and a Spanish Apollo certificate? The paperwork matches the physical anomaly. This 'X' is the bridge between them.

yumenon · Apr 6, 2026

Archer
Well, how did they do that exactly?

Here is how it happened: When the technician at the Ginza service center entered my serial number into their internal system, it didn't just stop at '3592.50'. It pulled up the specific 'X' reference linked to this movement and dial configuration.

The 'Extranet' that most dealers use is a simplified database for the public. However, Omega's internal master database contains production records for non-catalog pieces, prototypes, and special market deliveries. The fact that the 'X0031785' was automatically printed on the official 'Ref:' field of my 2026 service document proves that this link exists in their primary records.

The technician didn't just 'make up' a number or use a repair ticket. They looked at the screen, saw the X-reference, and even added the handwritten note 'APOLLO XI (unnumbered)' to clarify the discrepancy between the system data and the physical watch. They recognized this as an official anomaly.

yumenon · Apr 6, 2026

gatorcpa
I'm going to refer to this portion of the document you provided:

The case reference number, caliber, serial number and model line are clearly mentioned. Even says "Unumbered" as a comment.

All of this lines up with what has been told to you by the other commenters in this thread. It is a special edition for the 20th Anniversary of the Apollo XI mission, nothing more.

Hope this helps,
gatorcpa

Thank you, gatorcpa, for confirming that the official documents perfectly match the watch's configuration.

However, I would argue it IS 'something more' than a standard 20th Anniversary edition. As we know, the regular 20th Anniversary (Ref. 145.0022) came with a Cal. 861 and a solid case back.

This piece, officially identified by Omega as Ref: X0031785 with a factory ST 345.0808 case and Gold Cal. 863, represents a very specific, high-end delivery that wasn't part of the main 2000-piece run. The 'Unnumbered' status in the official 2026 notes is the final proof.

It seems I have a factory 'X-Ref' anomaly that bridges the gap between the display-back 345.0808 and the Apollo XI 20th Anniversary collection. Truly a rare bird!

sathomasga · Apr 6, 2026

yumenon
It seems I have a factory 'X-Ref' anomaly that bridges the gap between the display-back 345.0808 and the Apollo XI 20th Anniversary collection. Truly a rare bird!

I dunno much about Speedmasters (not my cup of tea ... well except for the X-33), but if I search for 3592.50 on Chrono24, I see dozens for sale that have a "T Swiss Made T" dial, display case back, a copper (or gold) calibre 863 movement, Apollo XI engraving, and no limited edition numbering. But if the watch seems especially unique to the OP, then who am I to disagree?

Archer · Apr 6, 2026

yumenon
Here is how it happened: When the technician at the Ginza service center entered my serial number into their internal system, it didn't just stop at '3592.50'. It pulled up the specific 'X' reference linked to this movement and dial configuration.

What system is this? Did you see this yourself?

yumenon
The 'Extranet' that most dealers use is a simplified database for the public.

The Extranet is not public. It is used for ordering parts by service centres so having accurate information is critical to get the correct parts and maintain originality, so it is not some simplified system. It would be very unusual for the Extranet to have the wrong model linked to a serial number.

yumenon
The fact that the 'X0031785' was automatically printed on the official 'Ref:' field of my 2026 service document proves that this link exists in their primary records.

This must be a document that you have not shared. The document you have shown was filled out by hand.

yumenon · Apr 6, 2026

sathomasga
I dunno much about Speedmasters (not my cup of tea ... well except for the X-33), but if I search for 3592.50 on Chrono24, I see dozens for sale that have a "T Swiss Made T" dial, display case back, a copper (or gold) calibre 863 movement, Apollo XI engraving, and no limited edition numbering. But if the watch seems especially unique to the OP, then who am I to disagree?

I appreciate the Chrono24 comparison, but there’s a critical difference between a standard 3592.50 and this specific piece that you might be overlooking.

Most 3592.50s on the market are identified by Omega simply as '3592.50'. However, as my 2026 documents show, Omega Ginza officially pulled this piece up in their master database as 'Ref: X0031785' and specifically labeled it 'APOLLO XI (unnumbered)'.

If it were just another 'run of the mill' 3592.50, Omega wouldn't need to assign a unique 'X' reference (which they use for non-catalog/special items) or manually specify it as an unnumbered Apollo mission piece in their primary service record.

The watch isn't unique just because I 'feel' it is—it's unique because Omega’s own internal records categorize it differently from a standard production 3592.50. This is a factory-confirmed anomaly.

gatorcpa · Apr 6, 2026

yumenon
It seems I have a factory 'X-Ref' anomaly that bridges the gap between the display-back 345.0808 and the Apollo XI 20th Anniversary collection. Truly a rare bird!

Omega does not make “one of” pieces. If there is a difference between this watch and a standard Apollo XI Commemorative, then I would be very concerned about modifications that occurred outside the factory.

We sometimes call these frankenwatches.

I’m not going to express an opinion either way, as I am not an expert on this particular model.

gatorcpa

yumenon · Apr 6, 2026

Archer
What system is this? Did you see this yourself?

The Extranet is not public. It is used for ordering parts by service centres so having accurate information is critical to get the correct parts and maintain originality, so it is not some simplified system. It would be very unusual for the Extranet to have the wrong model linked to a serial number.

This must be a document that you have not shared. The document you have shown was filled out by hand.

You are absolutely right, Archer. I misspoke—the 2026 document I shared was indeed filled out by hand by the technician at the Ginza boutique while he was consulting his screen. I apologize for the confusion.

However, the point remains: When the technician entered my serial number, he didn't just write '3592.50'. He explicitly wrote 'Ref: X0031785' in the reference field and added 'APOLLO XI (unnumbered)' in the notes. If the Extranet is as definitive as you say, why would a qualified Omega technician feel the need to manually override it with an 'X' reference and a specific mission description?

Also, looking back at my 2020 service card (from another authorized dealer), the watch was already recognized as a 'Skeleton' with a 'Gold movement' and treated as an authentic Speedmaster for a full service. I'm not claiming the system is 'wrong,' but rather that this specific serial seems to trigger a very specific internal identity that goes beyond the standard 3592.50 catalog entry.

Archer · Apr 6, 2026

yumenon
If the Extranet is as definitive as you say, why would a qualified Omega technician feel the need to manually override it with an 'X' reference and a specific mission description?

That is the million dollar question…

Can you please tell me what system this technician got this information from, if you have that information?

CaseStudy · Apr 6, 2026

Relying on some posts above and what’s been shown: there is a run of these configurations unnumbered so that isn’t worth bringing up in the context of a one-off, and they are for sale online, seemingly identical to yours in every way. The most unique factor sounds like it was your experience in Ginza; were it not for that then this “X-Ref” red herring would’ve never cropped up. Unique paperwork is different than a unique watch, looks like there are identical watches out there. Would you have any way of distinguishing the watch itself from another, especially excluding the paperwork that was filled out by an employee at work? Considering bringing it to another shop for a second look?