An Extract For Ref. 176.001

Until I received the one I recently ordered for my own, I had never seen an actual Extract of the Archives for a 176.001. Well, now I have and I figure it is time to gather my thoughts on the data it reveals and summarize the 176.001‘s place in Omega’s history and within the calibre 1040 family.

---

How 176.001 Has Been Understood Over The Years

A decade or so ago, prominent collectors weren’t even certain the 176.001 was an actual production piece – there was speculation that it was a prototype. The Omega Vintage Database and the book A Journey Through Time both muddied the waters by conflating images and descriptions of 176.007s and 176.001. The scant knowledge out there on this reference was mostly wrong, even in the usually credible sources. So it is understandable that only recently a clearer image of these watches come into view.

Last year when I launched this site, my very first article was an analysis of the known information of this underappreciated pioneer from Omega’s past. Despite the fact that my site had little traffic when it first launched (ok, it has little traffic now, but much, MUCH less then), this post remains the most popular article I’ve written in terms of pageviews, and still is one of the most widely read posts every week. That my article is helping more collectors get to know and appreciate one of Omega’s first automatic chronographs gives me great pride. Now that I have an Extract, we can add one more piece to the story.

---

Extract Data: Using Serial Number As A Proxy For Production Date

Judging by the serial number data I have collected over the years, I could get a sense of which references were the earliest models just by sorting my observations from lowest to highest. Many of those low serials in the 31 million range are 176.001s, but there were 176.002s and 176.007s sprinkled in there as well. This distribution of serials made me wonder if the 176.001, 176.007, and Speedmaster Mark III were released simultaneously, as opposed to the theory that the 176.001 was released first then quickly replaced by 176.007 after a few months. Now that I have an extract for a 176.001, I think the former theory prevails – Omega was producing reference. 176.001 alongside both the Mark III and the Seamaster 176.007. Let’s look at the evidence:

As you can see from the Extract, my Seamaster 001 was produced in March 1972.

This isn’t the earliest Extract I have seen for a calibre 1040 watch. In fact, this is only the 30th earliest serial I’ve seen. Here’s where it fits in with the rest of the data I’ve collected:

 

As you can see, I have seen an Extract for a Mark III made three weeks earlier, which fits well with what the sequence of the serial numbers suggests. I think this ends the speculation that the 001 was replaced by 176.007 and further strengthens the use of serial number as a proxy of production dates.

---

Other Thoughts From This Extract

When did calibre 1040 production begin?

I see a lot of references, usually in sales descriptions, of cal. 1040 watches as dating to 1970, regardless of what the serial number might suggest. This comes from a paragraph in A Journey Through Time using the patent for the ball-bearing rotor mounting system dated December 28, 1970. This happens to be only 3 days from 1971. Since I have yet to see an actual Extract from 1971, I think it is safe to say that no 1040s were made in 1970.

I was kind of hoping that my Extract would be the earliest in my database and a 1971 production to establish a possible baseline for production of these watches. But it turns out to be a later example of 176.001, as the serial number suggested.

If anyone has an extract from the earlier days of 1040 production, let me know!

More thoughts on that old technical guide

A rough sketch of the 176.001 as we understood it about a decade ago emerged when Steve Waddington revealed the following document, which he had acquired from one of his contacts at the Omega Museum:

 

 

Here’s what I wrote about this document last year:

The interesting part is the handwritten note on the bottom of the document, which when translated from French says “replaced by 176.0007 18.3.72”. Who wrote that note? A watchmaker, or someone from the Omega Museum? That’s not known, but it clearly implies that reference 176.001 preceded 176.007. Interestingly enough, there is a 1972 version of the technical guide that depicts 176.007 MD, and a modern (includes Swatch Group logo) PDF version of the technical guide depicting the same 176.007 MD, that dates the movement (incorrectly) to 1972.

My extract doesn’t really answer any of those questions I posed, but I do find it interesting that my watch was produced in the middle of March of 1972, two days before this document suggests the reference was “replaced”.

Just speculating, but I now wonder if March 18, 1972 is the day that the final 176.001 rolled off the line, and the replacement implied by the document was just the treatment of the remaining casebacks – that stock was re-purposed for the 176.007, which was already in production, and the 001 reference was scratched out.