How rare is this cal 861 Speedy from 1969?

[Gurmot]

Hi,

I bought this Speedmaster cal 861 as it was a little different to most I see. It's a cal 861 from 1969 and has the plain seamonster caseback engraved 145.022-69. I've recently noticed that it has the pie-pan dial normally assoviated with the cal 321 but it has a painted Omega logo on the dial and not the applied gold logo as with most pie-pans on the cal 321 Speedmasters.

With the 40th anniversary of the moon landings next year, I was wondering how rare this watch is and if is more or less valuable than the 321s or 861s with the "NASA qualified" casebacks.

Any info or links to other sources would be much appreciated.

Thanks - Simon

[Ken Cox]

1969?

The year a man first walked on the Moon?

And, it has a case back identical to the Speedmaster Pro worn on the Moon; and not the marketing-hype case back of later years?

To me, this specific year and model watch represents the single most desireable watch on the planet.

For all you know, you could have the Buzz Aldrin watch stolen from the Smithsonian.

When you die can I have your watch?
(Helicopter pilot humor.)

[Gurmot]

Yes, it really is from 1969. Here's a shot of the case back inside sohwing 145.022-69 (ie 1969) and the outside with the somewhat worn image of the Hippocampus / Seahorse.

Do you like it?

[Ken Cox]

Do I like it?

Absolutely.

I wonder what an Omega Service Center would charge to restore the movement to original condition.

I specify the movement because I recently had my 1986 GMT Master II restored, and the Rolex Service Center removed all of its history from the outside.
Other than replacing the crystal, I wish they had left all the dings and scratches it had acquired over the years from its world travels and travails.

Please comment on the distinction you have made between the cal 861 and cal 321 movements.
Which movement should this watch have had in 1969, and which movement(s) did the actual Moon watches have?

[Ken Cox]

I found the answer to my question:

http://www.chronomaddox.com/moonwatc...ackground.html

This watch should have a c.861 movement.

Now I have noticed the "pie-pan" dial, and will have to do some more research.

I like this.

[toph]

i have no idea about this but i am very interested to find out what you uncover about this rare peice!

[rocco1109]

I have one as well. I bought it several months ago. I've seen a few around. Prices seem to be increasing on the coat-tails of the 321 Speedmasters.

Mine has the same dial. It's just hard to see the pie-pan in this picture.

[Gurmot]

It's definitely got a cal 861 movement and the serial number is right for late 60's.

The movement is in very good condition and looks like new. I thought about fitting a clear case back to show it off.

In terms of a service, I use a local watchmaker who is Rolex, Omega and Breitling trained and he carries out sympathetic service work for sensible money. He's inspected this one and says it doesn't need a service so I've not had it done.

I think I'll leave it exactly as it is and then I may put it up for sale in 2009 when it's the 40th anniversary of the moon landing. I guess a WIS who's approaching a 40th birthday would be interested.

[Ken Cox]

Beautiful photos from both rocco1109 and Gurmot.

How nice to see the movement in context with the case back removed.

I find it interesting that the quality of rarity has played a role in this conversation.

I understand that rarity drives the value up, somewhat; however, both the historical relevance of this watch, and its aesthetic and mechanical beauty, fascinate me.

And historical relevance does not only pertain to the Moon, but to this watch's representation of transition in the history of watch-making.

For example, I have a Rolex GMT Master II 16760 "Fat Lady" which similarly represents a transition watch.

I also have a Hamilton 992B pocket watch assembled by the Hamilton factory in 1941 from parts made in 1940; one of the last quality pocket watches made in America.

I like Gurmot's watch because a person can put this watch on his wrist and go back in time to 1969, the very year the first man walked on the moon.

The year of issue, the slight wear and tear on the watch, its originality, its 321-861 visual ambiguity, and the absence of Omega's advertising hype on the case back, all make this watch, literally, precious, regardless of the relative numbers of similar watches on the market.

If I did not have a family to support, I would go into debt for this watch or a similar 1969 Speedmaster Professional.

Regardless, though, of its apparent good state of maintenance, I would send this watch to Omega for a thorough check-up and inventory for original parts, with the expectation of a letter of authenticity from Omega and the understanding that Omega would not polish the case or band (nor replace the tritium).

Apart from an identical 1969 watch worn by an American astronaut of the period, I cannot imagine a more desireable watch.

[Gurmot]

Thank you Ken.

I appreciate your words and can tell that you are man for whom a watch means much more than price, brand or showing off the latest "must-have" accessory. In fact, you seem to share many of the values I look for when choosing a watch and it's great to find a kindred soul.

For the record, I have owned a fair number of vintage and modern Rolex, Omega and other watches but my favourites are without doubt the well-loved, unrestored classics such as this Speedmaster which I am wearing as I type this reply.

I truly hope you find one for yourself one day.

Cheers - Simon