Posted by When I first shared my theory in April 2016 that Omega must have made closer to 20,000 Speedmaster 125s than the official total of 2,000, it was based on 287 observations. These points of data were unique serial numbers observed on cal. 1040 Seamasters and Speedmasters, plus unique serial numbers observed on cal. 1041 Speedmaster 125s. I was, and remain, completely aware that 287 is a small sample size.
Earlier this week I updated my estimates based on now having observed a total of 500 serials. What’s the significance of 500, other than being a nice round number? I’m no statistician so I can’t tell you precisely how much this reduces the margin of error, but I’m certain that with every additional data point, these numbers become more credible. Or said another way, each additional point of data makes Omega’s official counts less credible.
To recap: Omega says they made 82,200 1040 movements, but they also say they made 2,000 cal. 1041 movements. I have observed 414 cal. 1040 serials (about. half a percent of the stated 82,200) and 86 cal. 1041 serials (4.3% of the stated 2,000).
If Omega was wrong about the cal. 1041 total
This is my theory: 2,000 cannot be right. Assuming 82,200 is correct for cal. 1040, then we’d expect that I’d see about the same overall % of production for cal 1041 during the same time. So if I’ve really only seen about half a percent of cal. 1041, then Omega made closer to 17,000.
You might point out that my initial projection was around 20,000, and the projection has slowly moved down. True, but 17,000 is still a lot closer to 20,000 than 2,000. And the Speedmaster 125 (cal. 125) has been more abundant than all cal. 1040 references except 176.007.
If Omega was wrong about the cal. 1040 total
What if Omega was right about 2,000 cal. 1041 movements, but wrong about 82,200 1040s? Have I observed 4.3% of cal. 1040s too? If so then the real production total for cal. 1040 would be 9,628. That number seems too low, which is part of the reason I lean the other way,
Could both numbers be wrong?
Yes. If so, then all of my production estimates are wrong, at least in terms of raw numbers. But production of each reference relative to each other would still stand. The following chart is sorted by the most observations as of January 2017:
The shaded columns quantify their abundance compared to the median. Note that their rank by observations remains virtually unchanged, with only minor movement around the median. The ratios moved more toward the center for the most part but seem remarkably consistent for nearly doubling the sample size.
Bottom Line
One or both of these numbers – 2,000 and 82,2000- has to be wrong. I’m more certain than ever!
I would love Omega to reopen the books and examine with a fresh set of eyes. Or better yet, I’d love to spend a week researching this in the archives at the museum…call it an “unpaid internship.” Anyone at Omega listening? Drop me a line!
Hi,
I too believe that the 2000 number is wrong, but quite honestly don’t believe that 1041 production is as high as you extrapolate statistically.
What makes more sense is that there was an initial run of 2000 which sold well, so Omega seeing a market, extended production for a second and then third run. This accounts for the three batches of serial numbers you have observed and probably translates to anywhere between 5000-8000 total production.
As to why there is an abundancy of pieces available, this may be explained by the fact that these were expensive watches in their day, most likely purchased by aficionados, and so better preserved. As well I suspect that the 1041 production is part of the 82,000 total production figure since the individual movement pieces are the same, and when manufactured would not easily be identified as a unique production run.
By the way I am a big fan of the 1040-1041 movements, and quite impressed with your work on this subject. Well researched and articulated on this site, and various forums.
Dimitri
Thanks Dimitri. The idea that the 125 is better preserved due to being purchased and cared for by aficionados is one I hadn’t considered and certainly could contribute to its relative abundance today. But I imagine that there are several other factors that could impact availability (one way or another) 45 years later for all the 1040 and 1041 references. I think those factors are impossible to quantify though so I operate under the assumption that these factors offset each other and that frequency observed is as a good proxy for true production that we’ll get until Omega comes out with documentation.
But if Omega did come out and say the actual number was 6,000 I’d believe it and accept that my estimates overstated things due to some combination of the factors mentioned above.
Andy – having now looked at a few on ebay, can it be assumed (all things being equal) that the numbered 125 case-backs (ie from 1-2000) represent the first 2000 made, and thus worth a little more? Cheers
Hi Hamish,
I do think the numbered casebacks are from the first run, but I have not (yet!) seen a premium on the numbered ones.
Thanks ! Im looking at this one on our NZ version of ebay – it appeals as seems to be in original condition, cheap (about $1500 USD) and has appeal as 348/2000. HOWEVER check out that bridge shot – “17 jewels”. The guys knows nothing about it as it was his fathers. Would the rotor be a valid service replacement, or just plain wrong? (sorry to keep asking advice). Thanks a lot, Hamish http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=1253518650
Wow, that’s a really interesting example! I was unaware that there were 17 jewel versions of either cal. 1040 or 1041. I may have seen others but just not noticed the jewel count. Fascinating. I think an update to the movement page may be in order! If I bought this piece I’d order an extract. I’d be very curious to know what country this was delivered to. Usually the 17j versions of movements were delivered to the US. Did NZ have similar import restrictions?
The rotor and bridge look correct to me. The leather strap is a pretty neat quirk. It is also the lowest serial number I’ve observed on a Speedmaster 125, but still in that first batch from 1973 starting with 1973.
Thanks Andy, will place a bid, worst case as its reasonably priced I can update to the ‘correct’ bridge if required. Will keep you posted !
I would not change the bridge! In my opinion it is real and sets that piece apart. Good luck!