What a beauty but that price I am really suspicious about their description relative to the serial range and production numbers "It is generally accepted that a genuine “Ultraman” model must date from 1967, and that its movement number should fall in the 3,000-unit range, between 26.076.XXX and 26.079.XXX." Is that really generally accepted as they say ? I did not read it in MWO
That is a pure bullshit to me ... Just for an Ugly orange hand with absolutely no real source that can co firm this range ... this is the cherry on the cake for me ...
We discussed about this 'ultraman' with Anthony (mwo) and other speedy addict maybe 5 years ago and the only conclusion was there is no real proof this model leaved the factory like this. Now if people want to pay 14k+ for this ( which is for me the ugliest speedy in the world...this orange hand is like a scare in the speedy face ..) ... Good for them ...
And it's gone. Not taking sides, but I thought it was discussed that this post also added some validity to the Ultraman, http://www.watchprosite.com/?page=wf.forumpost&fi=677&ti=1054643&pi=7607273&pzt=1456703651 where Petros Protopapas discusses it.
I confirm that all Ultraman recorded in our DB (15 of them) are between 26.076.xxx and 26.079.xxx. It's true that 5 years ago we did not believe it could have been original. Now, several clues seem to indicate that this could have been an original fit. We will for sure do more investigation...
Greg from MWO told me he'd add it into the book now as now much more information about this particular model is available compared to three years back If an addenda or a reissue had to happen, Ultraman would now be part of it.
Hi! I purchased this piece and subsequently obtained an archive extract from Omega. The extract I received does not mention the orange chrono hand (remarks section is empty) and I was also told by Omega that this is simply because it may not have been noted at the time of production. Although, the fact that the production date of mine is listed as only 15 days after the one in the Fratello article and the extract for that one shown does have a confirming remark does strike me. Are the remarks sections blank for any other known example extracts? I am continuing to research as well, but so far, for what it's worth (I am not an expert)... -I do concur with the point that has been made that not all 3000 pieces in the serial number range in question were fitted with the orange hand, and -From what I've seen thus far it does seem plausible to me that neither Omega nor the museum (Petro et al) have a record noting each one originally produced with this variance. Of course, I'd love to see the community deduce a way to validate or reject any particular example set forth conclusively. If I discover anything more worth sharing I will update here and feel free to reach out if I can help in any other way.
I agree. At least a mention of the "special" orange hand and yes, if Mr. Protopapas can confirm without a shadow of a doubt what he advances, why not mention "so called Ultraman" on the extract? At this point I would buy the hype. If you compare with Rolex "special watches" for example, their red witting on the dials of the 1680s and 1665s, at least you know without the shadow of a doubt that those watches left the factory like that. I struggle that an interchangeable part of the watch, in this case the sweep seconds chrono hand commands a huge premium and the only thing you have to hang on to is what Mr Protopapas said...Im just saying that this is not enough to make this Speedmaster "special"to the point of paying that kind of a premium.
When I read this in the Speedy Tuesday article: This particular piece was made available to us by Roy and Sacha Davidoff, who currently own or have owned the watch. A big thank you to the Davidoffs! . I not really wondering, that they got a extract with the special remark.....