Is this a ringer??

[richard591]

Here's one for the dedicated Speedmaster moonwatch guru's

As I'm currently selling my lovely 145022-69 Speedmaster moonwatch (just after Apollo 11) on e-bay I'm keeping a close eye on others and their selling prices. So, a couple below mine is another which has got me a bit confused. This is the link to it  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Omega-Speedmaster-Professional-Chronograph-Pre-Moon-Watch-145022-69ST-/252661825785?hash=item3ad3d180f9:g:6oAAAOSwHMJYP36F

According to the description, it's a 145022-69 (like mine) with a 27 million series serial number. However, it's marked as 18 Jewel as opposed to the usual 17 jewel on the correct 861 movement. Now, I know there were some 18 jewel versions made, but according to a post in 2001 by Chuck Maddox I thought this was much later on and more common on the 1861 movement. I've never seen one on an 861 of this period. The watch also sports a movement cover I've never seen before, either on one like mine or much earlier.

My question therefore is :- is this a genuine article, or yet anothet e-bay "ringer" the like of which i've seen so many? The give away might be the price. It's on at $1,950. That's seriously cheap for one that's supposed to be "pre moon" and according to the Omega official serial number list I have should be from around 1967-1968. By way of example, I wouldn't take less than $6,000 for mine, but then mine has only 9 years use out of its 46 year life.

I've included a photo of the movement on this watch and have marked the position of what I'm sure is the 18th jewel with an arrow. I've also included a photo of the movement in my watch, from which you can see that this jewel is not there, as mine is the normal 17 jewel version of the 861.

Any comment would be welcome

 

[Sogeha]

Well I no Speedy expert, but I've never seen a replica with correct dial spacing and the movement looks like an 861, which is based on a Lemania calibre. 

I found this:-

http://www.speedywatches.com/reference-section/movements/

It says in the text that 861 is a 17 jewel movement and yet the accompanying pictures have 18 jewels engraved on them!

 

[ceejay]

Only observation I can offer is that the bridge with the extra jewel on the 18 jewel movement is a very different colour to the rest of the parts in that movement.

I would be weary of that watch.

[kernow]

A vintage watch has invariably been opened and worked on at some stage. What has been done to it is often questionable. This maybe a genuine Omega Speedmaster but it doesn't mean it's 100% original. Have you asked the question to the seller?

[richard591]

No, I havn't asked the seller yet, as I'm a genuine Speedy owner and not looking for another. It was an academic question for interest only. I thought it might be possible to swap both the bridges (the main with 18 jewel markings) and the one with the exra jewel, which is in the correct place for the 18 jewel version. However, I'm fairly sure that the 18 jewel version didn't come out until much later than the serial number of this watch, or so I believe according to Chuck Maddox' comments

The possiblilty of a marriage of parts is always present, and also very common in antique clocks. However, why anyone would do that to an old pre-moon version of this watch, hence completely cocking up its value, is beyond me. I also hadn't seen this version of the movement cover before with the [censored] around the edge and cut out's to allow for the winder and pushers. I've seen hundreds of the other standard type on watches with both 321 and 861 movements (like mine) but never one like this. The usual type has no [censored] and is a straight tight fit to the edge of the movement, not covering the winder/pushers. However, happy to hear from anyone who has seen this before.

Looking at the movement back to back against mine and blown up as much as I can, it looks to be a genuine Omega and genuine parts. However, that doesn't answer the question how or why. The only thing that didn't look quite right to me was that where the calibre 861 is stamped on the movement (just under the balance wheel) there is usually a very well defined and clear Omega logo to the left of it. I can't see that on this one.

The other worrying aspect is that I would expect any pre-moon speedy in good condition to be about 3 times the price. However, having seen many of the examples on e-bay being passed off as "original" and with the nuts polished off them, and one that's currently described as "pre-moon" but dated 1970, am I surprised - probably not!!. Apollo 11 landed on 20th July 1969, so anything after that is post moon and able to carry the appropriate engraving on the back -"First watch etc etc" in straight writing style.

Well, that's a surprise, how does the word F L A N G E get deleted as "censored?? How else do you describe a projection at right angles to the main cover??

[ILoveWatches!]

My opinoin here is that durring the life of the watch I think parts might have been swaped out and added. The 18j writing im not to sure about. Like i said before, I think that a watchmaker that was working on it insted of ordering the correct parts had extra newer movement parts and made them work. Thats why you have a mismash of parts and writing. I might not be 100% correct but thats my 2cents. Merry Christmas!!!