Unworn Omega 125

DaveCollins · Oct 13, 2019

Bill Sohne
Hi @DaveCollins

Chuck was a close personal friend of mine and I worked with him on many many different projects over the years...

We of course talked about the 125 .... heck I had extra bracelet and case parts that he wanted as backups .... We both thought it was odd of the 2000 "limited edition " number that was published by Omega . I even had a conversation with John Deithem and he also went along with the number.. This was before AJTT or even Omega Saga was even published.

The watch is massive .. it was a door jam knocker/ magnet ! . I have head many many stories of NOS cases that met their match walking with a doorway and the wearer swinging his arm and bang! I have seen more then my share of dinged up 12 oclock and 6 oclock curved edges. The original bracelet... like the one on your watch is also stunning piece of machining... the achilles heel of this bracelet are the double spring bar interconnects which were originally made of plated brass... the platting ould wear and the brass would then fail and the bracelet would just fall apart one link at a time.... Omega did re engineer the bracelet and made stainless steel interconnects between each link.... and dealers and watch makers were able to order then but was time consuming to rebuild and most instead offered the " replacement" bracelet which would look the same from the front but did not have the thickness to balance out the watchhead properly.... I dont remember the ref off the top of my head...

I also have a 8 inch wrist and a 37.5 sleeve length.... and this was always a way for me to show size differential between a Speedy , 125, 600m and Albatross.... I have since sold the 125 ( I had two ... just some them cause people offered me fair coin for them ) and the Albatross ( Chuck wanted that one so I let it go...).

Good Hunting

Bill Sohne

Great information. Since my watch is going to be an occasional wearer, I may not need to do anything about the brass plated interconnections. But it is good to know. Even though the focus of my postings and pictures was the watch proper, the band is impressive in its own right. In fact, when I handle the watch, it is the bracelet which has the most pronounced presence and gives me an impression of quality engineering and attention to tolerances. Like I said before, it seems as if Omega went to extra lengths with this watch in order to give the enthusiasts something special. From my point of view, they succeeded.

DaveCollins · Oct 13, 2019

JwRosenthal
You’ll find the group here is very democratic and questioning theories or opinions is not only appreciated but also encouraged as long as it’s done in a mature and respectful way. Everyone here loves watches, not just Omega’s but all watches be it vintage bargains pieces or rare LE’s...many here even love Rolex’s 😲

Rolex, yep:

Another unworn watch that I lucked into. It was a scary international purchase which turned out to be a home run. Rick verified that it was as advertised. He said the case had never been opened. The watch itself is in unworn condition ... 1962 Oyster Precision.

Dan S · Oct 13, 2019

DaveCollins
Rolex, yep:

Another unworn watch that I lucked into. It was a scary international purchase which turned out to be a home run. Rick verified that it was as advertised. He said the case had never been opened. The watch itself is in unworn condition ... 1962 Oyster Precision.

1962? With no-hole lugs? 😕

DaveCollins · Oct 13, 2019

Dan S
1962? With no-hole lugs? 😕

Yes, that's correct. There are no lug holes. I have a 1950 Oyster Perpetual that does have holes and a 1953 Oyster Perpetual that doesn't. The 1953 watch is almost identical to the Hillary Rolex, even down to the red lettering for the word "OFFICIALLY". It only differs from the Hillary watch in that the dial contains minute counts and the Hillary watch doesn't.

Holes or not depends on the specific reference and year. I don't think you can say anything concrete about holes for Rolex in general. You can for specific reference such as the Submariner and specific years.

Andy K · Oct 13, 2019

DaveCollins
The referenced thread perpetuates falsehoods concerning this watch. Let me quote from this thread.

"collectors rarely hang on to this watch and tend to flip it because of the extreme size and weight."

Extreme size? Since when was 42mm considered to be extreme size. These sorts of exaggerations do a disservice to the watch community. The exaggerations aside, I respect the work that Andy has done and he certainly has contributed more than I ever will. I think Chuck Maddox started the nonscense about this watch

"OK, if there is one word to describe the Speedmaster 125 it is Massive. Both in physical size and in weight the Speedmaster 125 is a big watch anyway you look at it."

Since Chuck was well respected, the false hoods started and took on a life of their own and have continued to this day.

As I've said earlier, this watch is roughly the size of my Fortis Chronograph. Neither watch is massive. Neither watch is extreme. Both watches are at the larger end of the spectrum for weight and at the large-normal for physical size. On my wrist, the Omega 125 is quite comfortable. In my opinion, it is more comfortable than my Rolex Sea Dweller was (at 42mm). I think part of the reason for this is the Omega's brilliant bracelet. It has tight tolerances and so it holds the watch stead on my wrist. The total weight of the watch is of no issue to me.

I don't mean to be critical of some of the important people in the watch community. But I think someone needs to stand up and say enough with the ridiculous exaggerations. Lets be more realistic and fair to what I think is a brilliant watch from the past.

Reread my thread carefully- the parts you quote are not me perpetuating any falsehoods but recapping what the prevailing narrative was at the time so I could begin to chip away at it. That thread, my two websites covering the topic, and my collaboration with the authors of Moonwatch Only were precisely “someone standing up and saying enough with the ridiculous exaggerations.”

DaveCollins · Oct 14, 2019

Andy, sorry if I've misrepresented your posting. Sometimes I read what I want to read, not what is written. I respect the work you've done and I think you've done a service to the community with your research. Sorry for the bad quote on my part.

simonsays · Oct 14, 2019

Really nice. I didn't have much hope for an original watch, given the ready availability of service cases, but that case back tell a different story!

DaveCollins · Oct 14, 2019

simonsays
Really nice. I didn't have much hope for an original watch, given the ready availability of service cases, but that case back tell a different story!

I hadn't thought about service cases. I think something else that indicates the watch is as advertised is the matching between the hand lume and the lume on the dial. Its a perfect match.

I spoke with Rick Littlefield about the hands and the fact that most Omega 125s have hands the clearly don't match the dial, or hands which are missing lume. Rick said that when a vintage watch is serviced, aged lume is frequently damaged. When Rick serviced the watch, he did not remove the dial and did not touch the hands. He said the risk was too great of damaging the handset lume and ruining the perfect dial/ hands/ lume patina. So he worked on most of the movement and lubricated it, but taking the entire watch apart wasn't something he was willing to do. He said as an occasional wearer, the watch could be used for decades without worrying about servicing.

I agree that the case back is a significant point about the watch, but I also think the dial side makes a compelling case for an original untouched watch.

simonsays · Oct 14, 2019

DaveCollins
I agree that the case back is a significant point about the watch, but I also think the dial side makes a compelling case for an original untouched watch.

That 1970s gooey seal tells you what you need to know, with a red wax seal still visible on the case! Having the engraved serial number is more than icing on the cake for me. It makes the watch.

ConElPueblo · Oct 14, 2019

DaveCollins
...When Rick serviced the watch, he did not remove the dial and did not touch the hands. He said the risk was too great of damaging the handset lume and ruining the perfect dial/ hands/ lume patina. So he worked on most of the movement and lubricated it, but taking the entire watch apart wasn't something he was willing to do. He said as an occasional wearer, the watch could be used for decades without worrying about servicing...

I am sorry, what?

So the watch wasn't completely disassembled?

DaveCollins · Oct 14, 2019

The watch was serviced as much as possible without removing the dial. As a master watch maker for 35 years, Rick is in a position to make a judgement call as to what was needed. I trust his judgement.

ConElPueblo · Oct 14, 2019

DaveCollins
The watch was serviced as much as possible without removing the dial. As a master watch maker for 35 years, Rick is in a position to make a judgement call as to what was needed. I trust his judgement.

When do you qualify as master watchmaker as opposed to just "watchmaker"? Anyway, I never heard any other watchmakers share that same concern so I was curious... I agree that it is your choice to make, though I have a hard time seeing how the watch could have been cleaned properly. @ChrisN, have you heard of this before? How would you clean a watch with the hands and - I assume - dial still attached?

eugeneandresson · Oct 14, 2019

ConElPueblo
When do you qualify as master watchmaker as opposed to just "watchmaker"?

When you want to move away from spending your days through a loupe, and rather become a business man (if I read correctly) 😕😕😕

https://www.hautehorlogerie.org/en/...ng/training-in-watchmaking/master-watchmaker/

Which doesn't strengthen the 'service as much as possible without removing the dial' angle...

Archer · Oct 14, 2019

ConElPueblo
When do you qualify as master watchmaker as opposed to just "watchmaker"? Anyway, I never heard any other watchmakers share that same concern so I was curious... I agree that it is your choice to make, though I have a hard time seeing how the watch could have been cleaned properly. @ChrisN, have you heard of this before? How would you clean a watch with the hands and - I assume - dial still attached?

Yeah...that’s nonsense. You can’t properly service a watch without fully disassembling it.

As to the concern about damage to the dial or hands, well if someone isn’t confident in doing a job without damaging something, maybe it’s best that he left it alone...

WYO_Watch · Oct 14, 2019

Archer
Yeah...that’s nonsense. You can’t properly service a watch without fully disassembling it.

Spoken like a typical watchmaker... become a master watchmaker and you can service a watch without it ever being in your shop!

DaveCollins · Oct 15, 2019

Archer
Yeah...that’s nonsense. You can’t properly service a watch without fully disassembling it.

As to the concern about damage to the dial or hands, well if someone isn’t confident in doing a job without damaging something, maybe it’s best that he left it alone...

Its a statistical type of situation. To remove a hand from a post, it causes the hand to undergo a significant flex, and when the friction releases, the hand will undergo a significant acceleration. When this occurs on newer watches whose hands have relatively fresh lume, the lume can accommodate the acceleration and flex. With older watches, the lume may or may not be damaged (with some probability of failure which is nonzero) . One sees this in vintage watches. Many vintage watches have replaced or missing lume (failure occurred in those instances). Those that don't are considered a good find. Recall all those adds that make sure the reader is aware that the lume on the hands and dial match. Why is this important.

I think Rick is simply being wise by not messing with something that is currently in a perfect state. Why take the chance. It is a purely statistical event where the probability of damage isn't zero. Rick is saying that he isn't willing to risk a failure. It isn't a skill based deterministic operation when dealing with older watches.

Let me add, that as the customer, it was ultimately my call. I could have insisted that the watch be fully disassembled. I opted to take the advice of a professional who has more experience than an arm-chair watch maker.

Archer · Oct 15, 2019

DaveCollins
Its a statistical type of situation. To remove a hand from a post, it causes the hand to undergo a significant flex, and when the friction releases, the hand will undergo a significant acceleration. When this occurs on newer watches whose hands have relatively fresh lume, the lume can accommodate the acceleration and flex. With older watches, the lume may or may not be damaged (with some probability of failure which is nonzero) . One sees this in vintage watches. Many vintage watches have replaced or missing lume (failure occurred in those instances). Those that don't are considered a good find. Recall all those adds that make sure the reader is aware that the lume on the hands and dial match. Why is this important.

I think Rick is simply being wise by not messing with something that is currently in a perfect state. Why take the chance. It is a purely statistical event where the probability of damage isn't zero. Rick is saying that he isn't willing to risk a failure. It isn't a skill based deterministic operation when dealing with older watches.

Yes I know how hands are removed. I'm a watchmaker and I do this for a living. While there is always a chance of something going wrong, there are methods that can be employed to mitigate risk. The specific risk you speak of is easily resolved by putting plastic on top of the hand you are removing, to prevent the violent snap when the hand is removed. I do this literally almost every day...

DaveCollins · Oct 15, 2019

Archer
Yes I know how hands are removed. I'm a watchmaker and I do this for a living. While there is always a chance of something going wrong, there are methods that can be employed to mitigate risk. The specific risk you speak of is easily resolved by putting plastic on top of the hand you are removing, to prevent the violent snap when the hand is removed. I do this literally almost every day...

With your technique, is there a risk of damage?

Archer · Oct 15, 2019

DaveCollins
With your technique, is there a risk of damage?

Very little...

Archer · Oct 15, 2019

WYO_Watch
Spoken like a typical watchmaker... become a master watchmaker and you can service a watch without it ever being in your shop!

Yes, apparently I've been doing it all wrong all these years...

eugeneandresson
When you want to move away from spending your days through a loupe, and rather become a business man (if I read correctly) 😕😕😕

https://www.hautehorlogerie.org/en/...ng/training-in-watchmaking/master-watchmaker/

Which doesn't strengthen the 'service as much as possible without removing the dial' angle...

The title of Master Watchmaker and what it means depends on where the title originates from. In most countries these are not protected titles, so if one wants to call themselves a master watchmaker, they can just simply do so.

Since the watchmaker in question appears to be in the US, then there's a chance this is an AWCI title, but there are two versions of the master watchmaker title that have been given out by the AWCI. The old one was a test that was administered in such a loose manner that the title became suspect. So you would be sent a watch that had problems to service and repair, and you repaired it, and sent it back. If the work was good, you became a master watchmaker. Of course you can see the problem with this - anyone could have repaired the watch.

Back when Rolex was still allowing parts accounts to be given out, they required everyone who wanted to keep there account to get a new certification that was a test done under supervision. This was the CW21, and most people who took the test failed it. It was originally a 4.5 day test, so 1/2 day written test, then service of an automatic watch (ETA 2824-2), then service of an automatic chronograph (ETA 7750), then service of a time only quartz (again ETA based), and lastly the "micro-mechanical test" which was restaffing a balance from an ETA 6497. They eventually reduced the test and dropped the 2824 watch, since most of what was done there is covered in the 7750. The latter version of the master watchmaker CMW21 was the next step up from the CW21, and the path to get to that level took years to define, and I'm not sure they ever came up with one. So the title was given to a bunch of people initially, and then very few (if any) after were able to get the title.

In other countries, I'm sure the title has meaning, but exactly what it means depends who gave the title and where. I recall meeting an older watchmaker at the VC factory and I probably still have card around - his title was "Expert Master Watchmaker" so apparently above the Master Watchmaker. No idea what that really means though...

So for me, I tend to take these titles with a small grain of salt...

Cheers, Al

Unworn Omega 125

DaveCollins

DaveCollins

Dan S

DaveCollins

Andy K

DaveCollins

simonsays

DaveCollins

simonsays

ConElPueblo

DaveCollins

ConElPueblo

eugeneandresson

Archer

WYO_Watch

DaveCollins

Archer

DaveCollins

Archer

Archer

Similar threads

Unworn Omega Speedmaster Silver Snoopy

Uncle Seiko 1035 flatlink Speedmaster Bracelet 20mm New Unworn Omega Clasp

Omega Seamaster 300M - Black Aluminum - 210.30.42.20.01.010 ( unworn )

Omega Speedmaster 125 Ref. 178.0002 Cal. 1041 (1973)

Omega Seamaster 300M Black Black - Diver - 210.92.44.20.01.003 ( unworn )

Omega Seamaster 300 - Diver - Blue Dial - 210.32.42.20.03.001 ( unworn )