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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.”

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I am sorry, what?

So the watch wasn't completely disassembled?

 

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?

 

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...

 

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...

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

Very little...

 

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

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