Posted by This is the first of three posts in a series designed assess the accuracy of the most authoritative and commonly cited sources for collectors when it comes to Omegas of this era (Chuck Maddox’s site, A Journey Through Time, and the Omega Vintage Information Database). My aim is not to discredit these sources or promote my own conclusions to the detriment of their positions. Rather, I hope to further conversation and offer a differing point of view and back it up with the data and observations shared on my site.
Chuck Maddox – the late collector and blogger
Chuck wrote the narrative on late 20th century chronographs on the early internet. He had a website and blog he frequently updated, and was prolific until his passing in 2008. He wrote academic articles for magazines, he had close relationships with and a well-curated network of fellow collectors and various insiders around the world. He participated frequently in discussions on forums, offering detailed responses to thousands of threads. He created nicknames for watches that are now ubiquitous, and may have been the first to apply the term “grail” to a watch.
Chuck’s passion was for tool watches, particularly chronographs, and his writing on then have been hugely influential to collectors in many ways. His article on the Speedmaster Mark chronographs wasn’t a cal. 1040-specific article, yet I consider it the most important piece ever written on the 1040 family.
I have had this article bookmarked since Chuck was still alive, and have checked back on it regularly for years. For most of that time, I accepted it as gospel, figuring if Chuck said it, it was true. I certainly didn’t know enough to contradict Chuck’s opinions on anything watch related.
Then in 2014, a friend and fellow collector mentioned that he had purchased what Chuck would call a “Mark IIIb” – and what I would now call a 176.007 with an E dial. My friend was explaining that he thought Chuck may have been wrong and that he believed that the IIIb was really just a Frankenwatch and that they never were offered by Omega in that configuration.
That conversation stuck with me, and gave me “permission” to start challenging longer-held assumptions. It also sent me down the deep rabbit hole that led to this site…
FURTHER READING: How an honest mistake by Omega can create a “Mark IIIb”
I now fully agree with my friend’s initial thought. 176.007 is a Seamaster reference, and Chuck was wrong about the Mark IIIb, Mark IIIc, and Mark IVb. If you look at his writing you’ll see that Chuck had a willingness to evolve his often strong opinions when confronted with new information. I have a hunch that if Chuck were still with us he may have come to the conclusion that what he referred to as the IIIb, IIIc, and IVb are really just swapped dials.
Aside from the b and c variants, this article is a goldmine of photos, information, and detailed specs. In addition to the great information about 176.002, and 176.009, he discusses cal. 861 Mark IIs, cal. 1045 Mark Vs, and other non-Marks including the racing-dialed Speedmasters and the 176.0012, known to collectors as the “Mark 4.5” for having the movement of a Mark V in the case of a Mark IV.
The article is a great resource, and is particularly of interest to Speedmaster fans. It helps provide context for where the Speedmasters powered by cal. 1040 fit in the Speedmaster saga. Chuck wrote an equally great article about the Speedmaster 125 as well, which I consider an essential companion piece to the Mark Speedmaster article. He also hints at the strange phenomenon that Speedmaster 125s seem to be too easily found for sale for a watch that was limited to 2,000 pieces. I’ve quantified that phenomenon here.
If acquiring and sharing my thoughts on that Mark IIIb franken had a small part in the creation of this website, I feel my money was not spent in vain! Great site Andy and thanks for sharing your ever-growing knowledge with us!