# Omega 2400 Marine Chronometer Project -- Calling all owners!



## Bruce Reding

Folks,

Fellow HEQ forumner David Johnson (dwjquest) has been compiling serial numbers for Omega 2400 Marine Chronometers. I've attached his results to date. If you have a 2400, or have a picture of a 2400, that has a serial number other than those listed, we would appreciate it if you could post a picture of it with the serial number clearly showing or stated. If possible, it would also be nice to know if it has a 1511 or 1516 movement, and, if you have the Besancon certificate, the certificate number and date. (These are the first two entries on the certificate.) If you would prefer to remain anonymous, you may e-mail the pics and information to me, and I will see that David gets it.

The 2400 is a remarkable instrument that is unique in the annals of horology. Introduced in 1974, it was the first (and remains one of only three) wristwatch to use a megahertz range AT cut quartz crystal. This extremely demanding and cutting edge technology made it by far the most accurate wristwatch ever made to that time. Even today, few watches can outperform it. By compiling serial number information, we can make inferences about the production of this remarkable piece. For instance, from what David has already collected, we can infer that there were at least two distinct batches made. (Probably separated by the 1511 and 1516 versions.)

We appreciate your help in piecing together an intriguing bit of horo-history! :-!


----------



## Bruce Reding

Three new ones collected so far. Folks have been shy about posting so far, but good results. |>


----------



## andymlow

My father, Frank Marlowe has #37057767. He does not have the certificate. I believe it has the 1516 movement.


----------



## CFR

*I think Omega changed from cal 1511 to 1516 somewhere between SN 37057440 and 37058156...*

.... so I'd be curious to know if your dad's is a 1516. I attached some pics showing how to tell the difference without removing the caseback. It's subtle, but the 1511 case is indeed larger and more sloped than the 1516, which is slightly "snubbed." In the 3rd photo, the 1516 is the smaller one on the right (34mm long, vs. 38.5mm long for the 1511). They look identical from a top view (not shown), though.


----------



## CFR

*And here are the movement differences...*

...can't remember if I posted these pics before. In the first photo, the cal. 1516 movement is on top, and the 1511 is on the bottom.


----------



## Stanford

I recently obtained this one. This is my first time on this forum so I hope both the text and pictures come out as intended.

One positive thing to come out of taking the pictures is that I can clearly see (from the pictures of the movement) that the bracelet pins are very bent and in urgent need of replacement!


----------



## Bruce Reding

Stanford said:


> I recently obtained this one. This is my first time on this forum so I hope both the text and pictures come out as intended.


The pics turned out well. A nice, complete set! :-!


----------



## Bruce Reding

andymlow said:


> My father, Frank Marlowe has #37057767. He does not have the certificate. I believe it has the 1516 movement.


Thanks Andy! Does he still wear it?


----------



## Bruce Reding

*Re: I think Omega changed from cal 1511 to 1516 somewhere between SN 37057440 and 37058156*



CFR said:


> .... so I'd be curious to know if your dad's is a 1516. I attached some pics showing how to tell the difference without removing the caseback. It's subtle, but the 1511 case is indeed larger and more sloped than the 1516, which is slightly "snubbed." In the 3rd photo, the 1516 is the smaller one on the right (34mm long, vs. 38.5mm long for the 1511). They look identical from a top view (not shown), though.


Interesting, Craig! Note that in David's compilation (the first post in this thread) that the case shape apparently transitions from the long to the snubbed after 37057517 and before 37058065. If one can assume that the transition to the snubbed case shape corresponds to the transition to the 1516 movement (which seems reasonable to me), then these provide tighter bounds.

Note also that watch number 37958522 in Sanford's post is clearly a 1516, and the Besancon certificate is number 1007. This would seem to support the conjecture that the upper limit on the number of 1511s made is around 1000.


----------



## CFR

*Re: I think Omega changed from cal 1511 to 1516 somewhere between SN 37057440 and 37058156*



Bruce Reding said:


> Interesting, Craig! Note that in David's compilation (the first post in this thread) that the case shape apparently transitions from the long to the snubbed after 37057517 and before 37058065. If one can assume that the transition to the snubbed case shape corresponds to the transition to the 1516 movement (which seems reasonable to me), then these provide tighter bounds.
> 
> Note also that watch number 37958522 in Sanford's post is clearly a 1516, and the Besancon certificate is number 1007. This would seem to support the conjecture that the upper limit on the number of 1511s made is around 1000.


Yes, thanks for the clarification, Bruce. Regarding numbers for the 2 flavors of Marine Chronometer movement -- the cal 1511 and cal 1516 -- Omega's website says that there were 1000 of the cal 1511 produced and 8000 of the cal 1516 produced. I've always doubted the figure for the 1511 -- I think it's too low -- because it seems like the cal 1511 pieces are far too common in today's market for there to have been only 1000 of them. And I question the ratio of 1511's to 1516's as well, because when I've looked on eBay, I'd say that about 30% of the Marine Chronometers I've seen are cal 1511, and the rest are cal 1516 (certainly not a 1:8 ratio!). Intuitively, it doesn't seem like there are tons of cal 1516 pieces out there -- 8000 seems quite high.

So assuming our MCs were cased sequentially (i.e., all cal 1511's first, followed by all cal 1516's), then here's what I figure, using rough numbers based upon the serial plates that we've seen:

Cal 1511 = 34914700-34917000 (2300 pieces) + 37057000-37057800 (800 pieces) for a total of about 3100 pieces

Cal 1516 = 37057800-37061900 = 4100 pieces

That would put total production at about 7200 pieces, with about 25% being cal 1511 and 75% being cal 1516. Somehow that seems more plausible than the 1000/8000 figures, although I'd love to know the answer for sure.


----------



## Bruce Reding

I agree with your hypothesis, Craig, that the reported 1000/8000 split is probably erroneous. When I first saw David's compilation, it was very obvious that the ratio was nowhere near one to eight. In fact, in his first compilation posted below, the split is 15 to 17. (He's since collected six or so more, but I don't know the new results yet.) While this is a small sample set, it is statistically unlikely to yield this ratio if the underlying population is 1000 and 8000. (An interesting challenge calculating the actual statistics. I won't do it this morning, but I'd bet the odds are less than 1 percent.) This leaves three possibilities in my mind:

1. The transition from longer to shorter cases does not correspond to the transition from the 1511 to the 1516. This doesn't seem likely, but should be examined. Do we have any known examples of a 1516 movement in one of the longer cases? 

2. There's biased selection phenomenon present. (A "Dewey Wins" scenario.) Hard to imagine what this would be, though. Also, you'd still have to postulate 1516s in older style cases or non continuous serial numbers.

3. The ratio was in fact much more even. 

The last feels the most likely to me. I generally agree with you serial number analysis. Two slight worrisome notes, however. The first is the existence in David's list of a 35XXXXXX serial number. (Interestingly, per your analysis, this would only further even the ratio.) The second, more worrisome note is that watch number 37058522 posted in this thread by Stanford, which is clearly a 1516 movement, holds Besancon certificate number 1007. While I would not expect a lockstep relationship between manufacturing order and certification order, I would generally expect them to be within a few hundred of each other, corresponding to sizes of the batches sent off to Besancon.


----------



## Bruce Reding

Bruce Reding said:


> The second, more worrisome note is that watch number 37058522 posted in this thread by Stanford, which is clearly a 1516 movement, holds Besancon certificate number 1007. While I would not expect a lockstep relationship between manufacturing order and certification order, I would generally expect them to be within a few hundred of each other, corresponding to sizes of the batches sent off to Besancon.


I found this on eBay this AM:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330069211772&fromMakeTrack=true

It's a 1516 with a Besancon certificate number of 212. Puts my second concern above to rest. It makes my wonder, though, about the scheme for sending watches to Besancon and/or how the resulting certificates were numbered.


----------



## CFR

Bruce Reding said:


> I found this on eBay this AM:
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330069211772&fromMakeTrack=true
> 
> It's a 1516 with a Besancon certificate number of 212. Puts my second concern above to rest. It makes my wonder, though, about the scheme for sending watches to Besancon and/or how the resulting certificates were numbered.


I saw the "Buy It Now" price and thought it was $200-$300 on the low side . . . until I read that the watch doesn't work!! This translates to: "Add 890 Swiss Francs plus insured overseas shipping (about $800 USD) to the price, because that's the flat fee that Omega charges to fix it, AND wait at least 5 months for Bienne to fix it IF all goes well." But I digress....

Back to the point at hand . . . here are my caseback numbers/Bescancon certificate numbers/Bescancon certificate dates:

caseback 34916232, cal. 1511, certificate 588, dated 2/24/76
caseback 37057395, cal. 1511, certificate 1165, dated 6/2/76
caseback 37058157, cal. 1516, certificate 642, dated 11/9/76

Do you think Bescancon assigned certificate numbers by movement type (e.g., certificates for cal 1511 probably started from #1 or #100, and certificates for cal 1516 also probably started from #1 or #100)? If not, wouldn't we probably see higher and more random certificate numbers for at least some Omega Marine Chronometers, especially if Bescancon also issued certificates for non-Omega movements during this timeframe?

I wondered 2 other things:

(1) What are the highest and lowest known Bescancon certificate numbers for the cal 1511 and 1516 movements, along with their dates?

(2) An unrelated question . . . can David (or you) double-check the existence of that 35xxxxxx serial number? And do you know if it was taken from an advertisement or from a "bona fide" existing watch? That 350xxxxx number made me really curious. I tried to magnify the posted image but it's too small.

It would be interesting if Bescancon could tell us how many certificates they issued for cal 1511 and 1516 movements, along with issue dates, movement numbers, and Bescancon certificate numbers. I'll bet Bescancon would know more than Omega about production numbers for the Omega Marine Chronometers! I'd specifically want to know the issue date/movement number/certificate number for: (1) The first cal 1511 that Bescancon received in the 349xxxxx series; (2) the last cal 1511 they received in the 349xxxxx series; (3) EVERYTHING about cal 1511 movements in the 350xxxxx series; (4) the first cal 1511 they received in the 370xxxxx series; (5) the last cal 1511 they received in the 370xxxxx series; (6) the first cal 1516 they received; and (7) the last cal 1516 they received. I think those 7 pieces of information would clear up a lot. If I were French, I'd take up this inquiry task!


----------



## Bruce Reding

That's an excellent set of questions. I also have found difficulty communicating with the French speakers at Omega (as did my wife, who speaks French quite well, which made me wonder if it was just the individual we were dealing with.) I wonder if Gino feels up to the task? I'll e-mail him.

David would have to answer the question about the 35xxxxxx.

FWIW, for my watch, which is serial number 34916529, my certificate is numbered 132, and is dated 19 Septembre 1975. I had a theory that they started over each new year, but your series of serial numbers put the lie to that one.


----------



## dwjquest

Bruce and CFR are too sharp for me!! The serial number was listed incorrectly. It should be 37057280 and it looks like a calibre 1511 from the case design.


----------



## Bruce Reding

*Re: I think Omega changed from cal 1511 to 1516 somewhere between SN 37057440 and 37058156*



CFR said:


> Omega's website says that there were 1000 of the cal 1511 produced and 8000 of the cal 1516 produced.


Craig -- I went to Omega's website, and here is the quote that I was able to find:

_With its derivatives 1510 (calibre standard) and 1511/1516 (marine chronometers), around 10 0000 Megaquartz 2400 units would be produced, of which 8000 units were of the 1516 calibre._

It doesn't state how many were 1510 vs. 1511, but, per their info., the two added together numbered around 2000. I agree that this feels doubtful.


----------



## Bruce Reding

dwjquest said:


> Bruce and CFR are too sharp for me!! The serial number was listed incorrectly. It should be 37057280 and it looks like a calibre 1511 from the case design.


Thanks for the clarification, David! :-!

As a general question, do you feel that your pics are good enough that all the serial numbers you've collected so far are unambiguous?


----------



## CFR

*Re: I think Omega changed from cal 1511 to 1516 somewhere between SN 37057440 and 37058156*



Bruce Reding said:


> Craig -- I went to Omega's website, and here is the quote that I was able to find:
> 
> _With its derivatives 1510 (calibre standard) and 1511/1516 (marine chronometers), around 10 0000 Megaquartz 2400 units would be produced, of which 8000 units were of the 1516 calibre._
> 
> It doesn't state how many were 1510 vs. 1511, but, per their info., the two added together numbered around 2000. I agree that this feels doubtful.


Ah, the cal 1510 . . . you HAD to mention that, didn't you, Bruce? :-s I've REALLY wondered about the number of those produced. Based upon what you've seen for sale, doesn't there appear to be even fewer 1510's than 1511's and 1516's out there? I rarely see 1510's for sale anywhere.

I've also wondered about cal 1510 dial options. We know Omega made this model with a sparkling blue aventurine (lapis) dial. But I also recall seeing a matte blue dial, perhaps in 2 variations -- I think one might've had a waffle texture and one might've been smooth, but I'm not positive. I thought those variations were genuine Omega dials but of course I'm not certain; because the aventurine dials were very breakable, these might've been aftermarket dials, although I recall doubting that at the time I saw them.

Presumably Bescancon would know nothing about the cal 1510's, because those movements weren't submitted for certification.

Back to production numbers . . . an obscure section of Omega's vintage website does specify that the cal 1511 was "produced in a total quantity of 1'000 pieces only." This means 1000 of the cal 1510 pieces were allegedly produced, because as you said before, Omega's website specifies 10,000 pieces total for the cal 151x movements (8000 of which are supposedly cal 1516).


----------



## Bruce Reding

*Re: I think Omega changed from cal 1511 to 1516 somewhere between SN 37057440 and 37058156*



CFR said:


> Ah, the cal 1510 . . . you HAD to mention that, didn't you, Bruce? :-s I've REALLY wondered about the number of those produced. Based upon what you've seen for sale, doesn't there appear to be even fewer 1510's than 1511's and 1516's out there? I rarely see 1510's for sale anywhere.


When I first became vaguely aware of this movement family, it seemed to me that I saw as many "non gold rimmed" (i.e., non marine chronometers) as "gold rimmed" models. This is hazy recollection, though, and may have been influenced by the places I browsed, such as Gisbert Joseph's site.


----------



## Bruce Reding

Many years ago, I took a short course in data analysis from Stu Hunter, Emeritus Professor at Princeton and coauthor along with Box and Hunter of "Statistics for Experimenters", which is an enduring classic on experimental design and data analysis. There was one lecture I'll never forget. He shared with us a paper that one of his former grad students had proudly sent him. We went through page after page of abstruse, high level data analysis. I was quite impressed. When we finished the review, Stu put the first slide back on the overhead projector, pulled out his red grease pencil, and wrote a large "D minus" on the title page. I was surprised and perplexed. The analysis had been a masterpiece of subtlety with no holes that I could see. Stu's beef, it turned out, was that there was not one plot or graph in the whole paper. His former student had never actually _looked _at the data.

That lesson has always stuck with me, and the ghost of Stu has been whispering in my ear that the OMC serial number data is ripe for a visual look see, especially since I just got an excellent update from David (dwjquest). I chose to do a simple scatter plot, which I've attached. It's crude, but revealing, as I think you'll see.

Before we get into a discussion about it, let me describe the scatter plot first. The number lines cover the ranges of the two groups of serial numbers (one for the 349xxxxx series and one for the 370xxxxx series), and are broken into major intervals of 500. Note that there is a discontinuity between 17000 and 46000 in the first line. Each point above the line represents one of the serial numbers collected by David. They are from his latest data set of 43 (good progress since this thread was started!), and have been corrected as per the discussions in this thread. In case my most excellent handwriting isn't totally clear roll: ), the first note states that question marks are used to denote numbers for which there is some doubt about their correctness. There are only four of these, and David feels that there's a good chance that they're correct. The second note states that points in close proximity are stacked. I did this to make it clear that there are two distinct serial numbers at these locations. Finally, the hatched area on the 370 number line indicates the transition from 1511 movements to 1516 movements. There are no known 1516s below this region, and no known 1511s above it.

With this as background, here are my observations:

1. There were two major series -- the 349xxxxx and the 370xxxxx. (This, of course, is a total No Duh. Something else I've learned in my career, though, is that one should always start with the obvious.) Clearly, Omega made two major batches, probably waiting for the first one to largely clear out before committing to the second. The interesting thing here is that the first part of the second batch used 1511 movements. Almost certainly these were leftovers from the first 1511 manufacturing run. (More on this later.)

2. In the 349xxxxx series, there is a significant gap at the start. The "dry spell" after the first serial number (34914743) is as large as the span among the next eight (34915904 to 34916963). While there's no guarantee that this gap isn't just due to our sampling, I strongly suspect that it's significant, and indicates an underlying gap in production. If so, then, assuming nonbiased sampling, the batch of which 34914743 is a part must have been quite small. Possibly this batch was made to iron out kinks in the production process and/or to get product to market as early as possible. (Basel or some equivalent, perhaps?) If the gap is real, then the span among the contiguous eight (from 34915904 to 34916963) would imply that there were somewhere around 1000 MCs in the 349 series. (More on this later as well.) It's interesting to speculate about the intervening watches. Could they have been the 1510s? (Do we have serial numbers for _any _1510? That could tell us a lot.) Finally, this gap makes the first watch "special" in my mind, sort of like a first edition. Do we know anything about this watch? Does it have special provenance such as residing in Omega's collection or some such?

3. There is a much larger gap at the end of the 349 series, with last serial number being 32,000 after all the previous, which span only 2200. Is this another possible misread? (Not poking at David. It's just the kind of question one must always consider in data analysis.) If not, then evidently this sub-batch was quite small as well.

4. By comparison, the 370xxxxx series has no similarly obvious gaps. (This doesn't mean that there are none, but a _lot _more data would have to be filled in here to conclude with any confidence that a gap or gaps exist. Also, if they exist, they must be substantially smaller than those seen in the 349xxxxx series.)

5. Assuming that the transition between 1511s and 1516s is a clean one ( i.e., they're all 1511s until the transition, after which they're all 1516s), then the split between the two is 18:25, or 42% vs. 58%. Clearly this is a far cry from Omega's stated 1:8 (11% vs. 89%) split. This leads me to strongly suspect, as discussed before, that the info on Omega's site is wrong. I further conjecture (with less conviction) that the error stems from their confusing the 349/370 split with the 1511/1516 split. Per the gap analysis in point two above, there appears to have been around 1000 in the 349xxxxx series. Also, it is not inconsistent with the data to think that there may have been as many as 8000 in the 370xxxxx series (albeit this latter requies a bit of "sampling luck"). The person compiling the stats may have overlooked the fact that a substantial portion of the 370xxxxx series used 1511s at the beginning.

Well, that's my thinking. I just hope Stu isn't spinning. :-d


----------



## CFR

This is a fantastic, thoughtful analysis, Bruce. The SN of my 1510 is 34914422, which would indeed put it before the earliest 1511 in David's sample (including the outlying 1511 with the very early SN).

I think you're correct about where the notion of 1000 cal 1511's came from. That's what I had always figured as well -- that there might be 1000 in the "349" range, since there seem to be relatively few of these -- but that's as deep as I got.

The Bescancon certificate numbers (scatter plot, anyone? ) may yield additional clues. Let's assume that each calibre started with certificate #1 (or perhaps 100?). I make this assumption because our lowest recorded 1511 certificate is #136, and our lowest recorded 1516 certificate is #232. Look at our highest recorded certificate numbers, which are #1165 (or perhaps #1202, from another source) for the cal. 1511, and #2659 (or perhaps #3041, from another source) for the cal. 1516. Using rough numbers, that suggests total production of about 5000 pieces, about 30% of which are cal 1511s.


----------



## Bruce Reding

Due to a bonanza from CFR, we've got 28 more serial numbers for David's database. I've attached the updated scatter plot below, with the new data points marked as X's. It's getting a bit messy, but hopefully is decipherable.

The main points I made below still hold:

1. 34914743 is now even more clearly an outlier on the early side. (Are we sure of the number, David?) Evidently being from a first, small batch, it'd be an interesting and significant piece to own. Something other than MCs recieved the serial numbers between it and 34915904. 

2. The last of the 349 series also continues to be a very clear outlier on the high side, too. If real, it was also evidently a part of a much smaller run.

3. Still no obvious gaps in the 370 series.

4. Still an apparently clean break from the 1511s to the 1516s.

5. The ratio of 1511s to 1516s is now 27:44, or 38% and 62%. The ratio of 349s to 370s is now 16:55, or 22% and 78%. A tad richer in 1516s than before, but of course nowhere near the 1:8 ratio stated by Omega.

Finally, with the count now up to 71, and with the scatter plot filling in nicely, one can now use the serial numbers more confidently to estimate quantities manufactured. From the plot, I would guesstimate that there were maybe 1300 349 1511s made (1100 for the main batch, and I threw in a couple of hundred for the two apparent tiny batches), and 4500 370 1511s made, which is in reasonable accord with Craig's certificate analysis below. Based on these two analyses, I'm beginning to doubt Omega's statement that 8000 1516s were made. I'm just not finding a place to fit those 3000+ extra 1516s in. I would speculate that the 8000 Omega referred to lumps 1515s and 1516s together.


----------



## Bruce Reding

CFR said:


> This is a fantastic, thoughtful analysis, Bruce.


Thank you! 



CFR said:


> The SN of my 1510 is 34914422, which would indeed put it before the earliest 1511 in David's sample (including the outlying 1511 with the very early SN).


Your serial number bolsters the commonsense expectation that the first 1510s were made in the same time frame as the first 1511s. It was sheerest speculation on my part, however, that 1510s were made in that early gap in the 349 series, and this may yet be disproven.



CFR said:


> Let's assume that each calibre started with certificate #1 (or perhaps 100?). I make this assumption because our lowest recorded 1511 certificate is #136 ...


Ahem. Certificate # 132 belongs to a certain moderator of a forum on high end quartz watches.  Actually, I never noticed until now that mine is the lowest certificate number that we've found to date. My MC is feeling special! :-d


----------



## Bengt O

Howdy
I have a MC with serial no 34916284. It seems to be the 1511 movement referring to your photos. Bought by my father i HongKong during a trip in the seventies. Have inherited it from him. Seldom used (to heavy) but still very accurate - approx. 1-2 secs per month compared to the Braunschweig atomic clock. Eats batteries like a Viper uses gasoline
I do not have the certificate, only instruction booklet and receipt from dealer

Best regards
Bengt O


----------



## Bruce Reding

Bengt O said:


> Howdy
> I have a MC with serial no 34916284. It seems to be the 1511 movement referring to your photos. Bought by my father i HongKong during a trip in the seventies. Have inherited it from him. Seldom used (to heavy) but still very accurate - approx. 1-2 secs per month compared to the Braunschweig atomic clock. Eats batteries like a Viper uses gasoline
> I do not have the certificate, only instruction booklet and receipt from dealer
> 
> Best regards
> Bengt O


Hello Bengt O. Welcome to the forum!

Congrats on having such an historic piece, and thanks for sharing it. Would you be able to post a picture with the serial number showing? Not a question of doubt. Just completeness for David's database.

Also, if you wanted to pursue it, Besancon has provided duplicate certificates to a number of other collectors, and I'm sure would do the same for you.


----------



## Bengt O

Hello again
Pictures enclosed........
Actually - I have something called a certificate, a booklet, but there are no numbers in it referring to accuracy. Only the notation
Officially Certified Chronometer with " especially good results" and that the files is archived in Bienne


----------



## Bruce Reding

Bruce Reding said:


> From the plot, I would guesstimate that there were maybe 1300 349 1511s made (1100 for the main batch, and I threw in a couple of hundred for the two apparent tiny batches), and 4500 370 1511s made.


I made a misstatement and an omission. What I meant to say was that there were 1300 349 series 1511s, _and 500 370 series 1511s_ (the omission). Also, there were around 4500 370 series _1516s_. (I had misstated 1511s here.)

Also, it turns out that the 34946xxx number was a misreading, so the purported small group of high outliers in the 349 series has evaporated. (The low outlier -- 34914743 -- has been substantiated, though, so evidently an early small group _was _made.)

Based on this and the most recent scatter chart, my best estimate now is that 1700 1511s were made (1200 349 series and 500 370 series) and 4500 1516s were made (all 370 series). I'd say that there's a high probability that these estimates are correct to within 20%.

Note that the logic isn't totally bulletproof. One could posit, for instance, that Omega had numerous small patches in these serial number ranges which they used for other models. This would make my estimates, which assumed that _all _the watches in these serial number ranges were MCs, too high. This feels unlikely from a manufacturing/record keeping point of view. Also, Craig's certificate number analysis, which was based on completely different data from a different entity, is in rough agreement. Bottom line -- I think we've got it pretty well hemmed in.


----------



## Bruce Reding

Bengt O said:


> Hello again
> Pictures enclosed........


Thanks for a good, clear set of pics, Bengt!


----------



## CFR

Bengt O said:


> Hello again
> Pictures enclosed........
> Actually - I have something called a certificate, a booklet, but there are no numbers in it referring to accuracy. Only the notation
> Officially Certified Chronometer with " especially good results" and that the files is archived in Bienne
> View attachment 35066
> 
> 
> View attachment 35067


Great pics, Bengt, and nice to see one that looks like it's never been polished.


----------



## Bruce Reding

CFR said:


> I saw the "Buy It Now" price and thought it was $200-$300 on the low side . . . until I read that the watch doesn't work!! This translates to: "Add 890 Swiss Francs plus insured overseas shipping (about $800 USD) to the price, because that's the flat fee that Omega charges to fix it, AND wait at least 5 months for Bienne to fix it IF all goes well." But I digress....


I note that he has added info that he's had a battery put in it and it works. It'd be a bit of a gamble, but that could end up being a pretty good deal. Inner and outer box and certificate? A nice complete set. Just needs an instruction manual to be complete. (I expect a box and manual for mine soon, btw.)


----------



## roba

*Here are some I spotted today...*

These are in the Antiquorum Omegamania auction.


----------



## Bruce Reding

Thanks, Robert! Would that be a pride or a pod of Connies? :-d I'd love to see that stardust dial in real life. Must be gorgeous!

I caught your TZ post. Must have been a wonderful afternoon. (And the champagne can't have hurt.  )


----------



## roba

Bruce Reding said:


> Thanks, Robert! Would that be a pride or a pod of Connies? :-d I'd love to see that stardust dial in real life. Must be gorgeous!
> )


Both of the Stardust models were beautiful, it was difficult getting photographs though, my compact camera has a fixed lens so I couldn't really zoom in

The gold model's serial number is 34913551


----------



## Bruce Reding

roba said:


> The gold model's serial number is 34913551


Interesting. That's a lower serial number than the lowest known MC. I'd guess that that one has a 1510 movement.


----------



## roba

Bruce Reding said:


> Interesting. That's a lower serial number than the lowest known MC. I'd guess that that one has a 1510 movement.


Spot on, that and the stainless "stardust" have 1510 movements. From the catalogue:
*
 "STAINLESS STEEL CONSTELLATION STARDUST"
Omega, "Constellation, Megaquartz, F 2.4 MHz", No. 34913323, Ref. ST 396.0806. Sold on 26th April, 1979. Very fine and rare, large, rectangular and curved, dead center-seconds, waterresistant, stainless steel gentleman's quartz wristwatch with date and an integral stainless steel Omega bar-link bracelet with deployant clasp. This watch is sold with a box, a Certificate of Authenticity, and a 2-year Omega guarantee.

"GOLD CONSTELLATION STARDUST"
Omega, "Constellation, Megaquartz, F 2.4 MHz", No. 0340, movement No. 34913551, Ref. BA 396.0806. Sold on 14th Jully, 1975. Very fine and rare, large, rectangular and curved, dead center-seconds, water-resistant, 18K yellow gold gentleman's quartz wristwatch with date and an integral 18K yellow gold Omega bar-link bracelet with deployant clasp. This watch is sold with a box, a Certificate of Authenticity, and a 2-year Omega guarantee. Property of a Swiss Gentleman

"MARINE CHRONOMETER" - THE WORLD`S MOST ACCURATE WRISTWATCH
Omega, "Constellation, Marine Chronometer, Megaquartz, f2,4 MHz", No. 37057175, Ref. ST 198.0074 / 398.0836. Sold on July 12, 1976. Very fine,rare, and exceptionally accurate, large, rectangular, dead center seconds, water-resistant, stainless steel gentleman`s wristwatch with date, independent hour adjustment and 14K gold bezel and an integral Omega bracelet with deployant clasp. This watch is sold with a box, a Certificate of Authenticity, and a 2-year Omega guarantee.

"MARINE CHRONOMETER" - THE WORLD`S MOST ACCURATE WRISTWATCH
Omega, "Marine Chronometer, Constellation, Megaquartz, f2,4 MHz", No. 37061090, Ref. ST 198.0082 / 398.0832. Sold on January 18, 1978. Very fine,rare, and exceptionally accurate, large, rectangular, dead center seconds, water-resistant, stainless steel gentleman`s wristwatch with date, independent hour adjustment and 14K gold bezel and an integral Omega bracelet with deployant clasp. Accompanied by Bulletin de Marche from the Besançon Observatory. This watch is sold with a box, a Certificate of Authenticity, and a 2-year Omega guarantee.
*


----------



## Gino

Hi all, I thought I might ask a question now that we seem to have many owners of the MC gathered together in one place . 

My own watch (37058846 - 1516) was serviced by the factory just after I bought it a few years ago and mostly lives in its nice (though modern) Omega wooden box. Here it keeps time pretty well, certainly within one second per month. That is, if not subject to any significant knocks. 

And this is my question to other MC owners: do you find that sometimes when wearing the watch and perhaps giving it a few shocks, it sometimes looses a second? This has happened to me while playing (ha) badminton.

I have an idea that while the stepping armature (which actually keeps the movement locked most of the time) jumps between the magnet poles during an impulse from the timebase, it can become ’ upset’ if at the same time the watch is subject to a sudden shock. The armature (for want of a better word) pivots are mounted in Incablock type shock absorbers which allow the assembly some freedom but at the same time can allow the armature to ’miss an beat’ and thus lose a months rate. 

I just wondered if anyone else had experienced this or would care to comment.

Thanks.


----------



## CFR

Gino said:


> Hi all, I thought I might ask a question now that we seem to have many owners of the MC gathered together in one place .
> 
> My own watch (37058846 - 1516) was serviced by the factory just after I bought it a few years ago and mostly lives in its nice (though modern) Omega wooden box. Here it keeps time pretty well, certainly within one second per month. That is, if not subject to any significant knocks.
> 
> And this is my question to other MC owners: do you find that sometimes when wearing the watch and perhaps giving it a few shocks, it sometimes looses a second? This has happened to me while playing (ha) badminton.
> 
> I have an idea that while the stepping armature (which actually keeps the movement locked most of the time) jumps between the magnet poles during an impulse from the timebase, it can become ' upset' if at the same time the watch is subject to a sudden shock. The armature (for want of a better word) pivots are mounted in Incablock type shock absorbers which allow the assembly some freedom but at the same time can allow the armature to 'miss an beat' and thus lose a months rate.
> 
> I just wondered if anyone else had experienced this or would care to comment.
> 
> Thanks.


Hi Gino,

Yes, I've observed this on occasion, and it seems pretty random. Shortly after I got the first MC, I took it on a trip to NYC. It underwent very few shocks -- or so I thought -- but lost about 10 seconds by the time I returned home. I thought it was broken. But it has never behaved so badly since then, and I've worn it frequently. In fact, to test this, I intentionally took it on several bike rides last year over Boston's pitted streets (lots of bumps and potholes). At the end of these rides, the watch never skipped a beat. It has always been fine when stationary. I always wondered what the technical explanation might be for this. Thanks for explaining your theory, even though I don't understand all its intricacies.


----------



## Bruce Reding

Gino said:


> Hi all, I thought I might ask a question now that we seem to have many owners of the MC gathered together in one place .
> 
> My own watch (37058846 - 1516) was serviced by the factory just after I bought it a few years ago and mostly lives in its nice (though modern) Omega wooden box. Here it keeps time pretty well, certainly within one second per month. That is, if not subject to any significant knocks.
> 
> And this is my question to other MC owners: do you find that sometimes when wearing the watch and perhaps giving it a few shocks, it sometimes looses a second? This has happened to me while playing (ha) badminton.
> 
> I have an idea that while the stepping armature (which actually keeps the movement locked most of the time) jumps between the magnet poles during an impulse from the timebase, it can become ' upset' if at the same time the watch is subject to a sudden shock. The armature (for want of a better word) pivots are mounted in Incablock type shock absorbers which allow the assembly some freedom but at the same time can allow the armature to 'miss an beat' and thus lose a months rate.
> 
> I just wondered if anyone else had experienced this or would care to comment.
> 
> Thanks.


Hi Gino. Yes, this might be the most concentrated gathering of OMC owners on the planet. |>

On your question, I had the misfortune of testing it today. I gave my MC a hell of a blow on a (metal) door frame. (Left a ding. :-| ) It did not appear to affect the time. It could be, however, that certain parts of the "tick cycle" are more prone to derangement due to an impulse than others, and I may have been lucky roll: ) in hitting it in one of its less vulnerable moments.

I'll tell you one thing -- as interesting as your supposition is, I will _not _be whacking my watch repeatedly on door frames to test it. :-d


----------



## geronomo12

Hi Guys, I started collecting in 1969 - my first was an Omega Speedmaster Mark II. I wore it continuously until I saw a picture in a magazine of a wet Stainless Marine Chronometer. I was possessed to get it. I was on my honeymoon on Bremuda and paid the full list price of $1,850. The watch just broke a few years ago and I had to abuse Omega verbally to fix it. Ir with not much care other than occasional bettery replacement and waterproofing. A few years agi it stopped and my friendly jeweler said Omega didn,t support the watch anymore. I went crazy. I tried to find a little guy to do but to no avail. Finally when I was letting all the people in the store know what a hack company Omega was, unable to even support original owners watches that werer sold to them by authorized dealers. The very watch that they brag about on their web site. I said very loudly thatthe company was detined to be another Tag, not a Rolex. After a fer months, they relented and set it back to Switzerland for 3 months. Now it is perfect with a 2 year warrantee.My serial # is 37057041. It's the most beautiful watch I own. It is the only non mechanical and I have some heavies, ie. an IWC platinum, an AP gold Calendar, An old Rolex Belly back, a Zenith Rainbow flyback chronometer ,an Alain Silverstein Bodoni, an old PVD coated Heueur a breiling colt and seawolf Avenger, Gevril Av of the Amer, Many more as well. I love watches.


----------



## Bruce Reding

geronomo12 said:


> Hi Guys, I started collecting in 1969 - my first was an Omega Speedmaster Mark II. I wore it continuously until I saw a picture in a magazine of a wet Stainless Marine Chronometer. I was possessed to get it. I was on my honeymoon on Bremuda and paid the full list price of $1,850. The watch just broke a few years ago and I had to abuse Omega verbally to fix it. Ir with not much care other than occasional bettery replacement and waterproofing. A few years agi it stopped and my friendly jeweler said Omega didn,t support the watch anymore. I went crazy. I tried to find a little guy to do but to no avail. Finally when I was letting all the people in the store know what a hack company Omega was, unable to even support original owners watches that werer sold to them by authorized dealers. The very watch that they brag about on their web site. I said very loudly thatthe company was detined to be another Tag, not a Rolex. After a fer months, they relented and set it back to Switzerland for 3 months. Now it is perfect with a 2 year warrantee.My serial # is 37057041. It's the most beautiful watch I own. It is the only non mechanical and I have some heavies, ie. an IWC platinum, an AP gold Calendar, An old Rolex Belly back, a Zenith Rainbow flyback chronometer ,an Alain Silverstein Bodoni, an old PVD coated Heueur a breiling colt and seawolf Avenger, Gevril Av of the Amer, Many more as well. I love watches.


Welcome, Geronimo! An original owner? Cool! Do you still have all the incidentals? (boxes, manual, warrantee, rating certificate.) That'd be a very nice, collectible package. Do you have any pics?

The dealing you were working with must have been ill informed. As far as I know, Omega has never stopped supporting repair and maintenance for this watch. I'm glad it worked out, anyway. |>


----------



## Gino

Thanks Craig and Bruce, yes it does seem that you have to catch it just at the wrong moment to get the effect. In navigational terms being a second or two out I suppose would not be too much of a problem (by mechanical chronometer standards), but it is annoying to those of us who are obsessed. Bruce, sorry to hear of your recent shock test - ouch, I hate metal door frames. Actually my impression is that the MC movement is pretty well protected with the Incablok pivots and the way the horns of the ’anchor’ (for want of a better word) are ’locked’ into the ’escape’ wheel for 90% of the time. Unfortunately though there will / might be times when the beast gives a hicup, and this, apart from cost, might have been one of the reasons why the movement was rather short lived. I wonder if the Oysterquartz has similar behaviour, as I understand that it uses a fairly similar motor arrangement.


----------



## Marc-B1

1 question: When will the iventory-photo at the beginning of this topic be updated ? :-s

My MC 2400 is feeling so lonely...snif....


----------



## irlca

Yeah, I don't like the styling of the MC but I really dig the history aspect here. Going back through musty time to the 70's. And the fact these watches are still supported and performing very well today. I am sure Bruce is very happy and rightly so with the positive response from people many of them new as far as I can see. 
Re: the project, a few observations (maybe obvious):

Why not trawl google for pics of MC's via web search or pic search or group search?

I remember coming across a guy who had pics of every watch on the planet once. Name of Jayhawk I think.


----------



## CFR

irlca said:


> Yeah, I don't like the styling of the MC but I really dig the history aspect here.


I remember the first time I saw one of these. It was on the (gigantic) wrist of Bill S., who used to moderate the TZ Omega forum. We both used to live in the Washington, DC, area, and we and hung out every now and then. My wrist is much smaller than Bill's, and I figured the watch would be ill-fitting and look ridiculous on me. I also assumed the bracelet couldn't be sized to fit my wrist.

Over the next few years, I'd occasionally think about the MC, and particularly its styling (vs. the technology and accuracy -- I knew nothing about the watch other than how it looked, at that point). It wasn't attractive to me at first; rather, it just looked bizarre, but in a compelling sort of way. Then I started looking into it more -- Gino's web pages were especially helpful -- and as I learned about its history, I became increasingly interested in getting one. At some point along the way, I started to find the watch aesthetically pleasing, probably for the same reason I think Langes are attractive but Pateks are totally uninspiring (I think the MC, like many Lange models, is both beefy and austere).

I was wrong about the bracelet: I was able to size it to fit my wrist pretty easily, albeit with all of the removable links removed and with the deployant adjustment set relatively tight. But I was right about how it looked on my wrist: truly silly, I think -- way too big for me (looks like I'm on house arrest and this is my electronic monitoring device) -- but I love it anyway!


----------



## Bruce Reding

CFR said:


> At some point along the way, I started to find the watch aesthetically pleasing, probably for the same reason I think Langes are attractive but Pateks are totally uninspiring (I think the MC, like many Lange models, is both beefy and austere).


Well said, Craig. I agree. I've had this evolution of opinion on a number of watches. It's partly due to gaining a deeper appreciation of the innards. It's also partly due, though, to slowly "getting" the design. In this case, the design, while unorthodox and unapologetically massive, is totally harmonious. I think it's a masterpiece.


----------



## geronomo12

Just another little piece of trivia i remember from when i purchased my 2400 in the mid 70's. The famous French man of the oceans, Jacques Cousteau, wore this watch in almost every picture from the mid seventies on. The watch was so consistently accurate (+ or - less than 1/2 second/month) for years on end, that instead of calling the phone number for the exact time (I'm not really as crazy as it sounds), I would set every other timepiece and clock I owned from it. It was like having the first atomic watch. I do have the original box and papers. They are in my attic. I will pull it out one day. In my last posting I was very critical of the way Omega treated me when I had a problem with the watch a few years ago. I believe it was a case of the perfect storm. Omega, as a company was in big trouble and they fired a large number of people. They were in a terrible state and being taken over. It happens to be quite true that at that time they said they 'COULD NOT' fix it and that the part I needed wasn't available or being made anymore. It was the first time I had a problem with the watch after about 30 years of service with almost no issues except battery replacement and a scratched crystal. It didn't sit well with me at the time at all. Now that it is fixed, I'll let it go. They did charge me quite a bit though. They are obviously moving up again as a quality manufacturer and may one day be nipping at the heals of Rolex as they did in the late 60's and early 70's. The real key will be staying technologically superior with fine in-house movements. Our watches are on a real increasing value ride lately. For years they languished with resale values in the $600 - $900 range. Those days are long gone, not that I would part with mine for any price. I believe, though I'm not sure, that we have the most accurate watches ever made that aren't tying into an external signal.


----------



## Gino

While not moving in those exalted fields of Lange and Patek I have never found expensive watches particularly attractive or to my taste. I suppose it is a different matter if one can afford to pay many thousands for such things, and this also probably involves aspects of background and education. I have also found modern expensive cars pretty uninspiring; all gadgets and looking like they have been squashed, and those toys are also out of my reach… These days few things to me look like they have been properly designed, sure there are lots of ’designer objects’ out there, but most of them seem for want of a better word; silly, and are obviously designed to appeal to an undiscriminating and poorly informed public (not that I’m not).

There are things though that are and have to be ’properly’ designed, and one thinks of items such as military watches, (real) marine chronometers, Tactical radio equipment, professional electronics and even firearms (wash my mouth - UK resident). And these things have interested me at various times over the years.

Now as we know ‘our’ marine chronometer was always an uncompromising beast. Exotic, strange looking and painfully expensive. Of course many big chunky things were about then, the Time Computer was hardly elegant and the Chrono Quartz pretty substantial, oh and the Speedmaster 125 was bigger than all of them (probably). So the MC I suppose to some extent followed the fashion, (indeed the bracelet links are interchangeable with the Chrono-Quartz and for all I know probably with the TC) though given the movement design it is not obvious how they could have made the watch more compact. So perhaps form follows function in this case (sorry), and with that outstandingly legible dial arrangement and the sapphire crystal we may actually have a pretty serious and no-nonsense timepiece. Well almost, if one ignores the gold adornments. But there again one might argue that they give the piece some élan, some elegance. So I am inclined to agree that Bruce is as usual quite right; the MC 2400 is a masterpiece. Not only a masterpiece of watch making (though we have to remember it was not designed by watchmakers) but also a masterpiece of industrial design.

But I could be wrong.


----------



## ppaulusz

Gino said:


> ...Now as we know 'our' marine chronometer was always an uncompromising beast. Exotic, strange looking and painfully expensive. Of course many big chunky things were about then, the Time Computer was hardly elegant and the Chrono Quartz pretty substantial, oh and the Speedmaster 125 was bigger than all of them (probably). So the MC I suppose to some extent followed the fashion, (indeed the bracelet links are interchangeable with the Chrono-Quartz and for all I know probably with the TC) though given the movement design it is not obvious how they could have made the watch more compact. So perhaps form follows function in this case (sorry), and with that outstandingly legible dial arrangement and the sapphire crystal we may actually have a pretty serious and no-nonsense timepiece. Well almost, if one ignores the gold adornments. But there again one might argue that they give the piece some élan, some elegance. So I am inclined to agree that Bruce is as usual quite right; the MC 2400 is a masterpiece. Not only a masterpiece of watch making (though we have to remember it was not designed by watchmakers) but also a masterpiece of industrial design.
> 
> But I could be wrong.


The Omega MC 2400 is indeed a masterpiece!:gold


----------



## geronomo12

It just does my heart good to see this watch finally getting the respect that this courageous design deserves. It made me think of a bank vault when I first purchased it. It's quite a remarkable design that has certainly stood the test of time so far.


----------



## hstruik

Here's another one, 34916259, cal. 1511.
Accurate to less then 1 Sec/month, at least when the temp. is around 28 Celcius when wearing the watch.
Above or below that temp., the accuracy is considerably less.
No papers anymore. May be able to get a copy of the certificate from France.
Sorry for being so late, but I just discovered this site.

Greetings from Luxemburg.

Hans.


----------



## Bruce Reding

hstruik said:


> Here's another one, 34916259, cal. 1511.
> Accurate to less then 1 Sec/month, at least when the temp. is around 28 Celcius when wearing the watch.
> Above or below that temp., the accuracy is considerably less.
> No papers anymore. May be able to get a copy of the certificate from France.
> Sorry for being so late, but I just discovered this site.
> 
> Greetings from Luxemburg.
> 
> Hans.


Hi Hans. Welcome, and thanks for the info! :-!

Are you the original owner?


----------



## hstruik

Was unable to post pictures on the site.(don't know why)
Sent some to the threat originator, so maybe he can post them.


----------



## hstruik

Bruce Reding said:


> Hi Hans. Welcome, and thanks for the info! :-!
> 
> Are you the original owner?


Hi Bruce,
Unfortunately not.
As a (not fanatic) Marine Chronometer collector, ( I owe a Wempe and two Glashutte full size quartz chronometers plus some mechanical ones), I bought it from an old guy in Germany, who said he was the original owner, but had no papers anymore.
As an accuracy freak, I checked the Omega with the Microset and related temperature, pressure, humidity and laser sensors, and found out that at 28C +/- a few degrees the accuracy is less than 0.5 Sec/Month.
Beyond that range however, the deviation is considerable. (Up to 2 Sec/Month)


----------



## dwjquest

hstruik said:


> Was unable to post pictures on the site.(don't know why)
> Sent some to the threat originator, so maybe he can post them.


I am happy to post some of your pictures, Hans. And thanks for sharing them with us.


----------



## Bruce Reding

Very nice, Hans! :-!


----------



## jon12w

Here is mine... I wanted one for the longest time and finally picked this one up a few weeks back... I love this watch! Over the past week of checking the timekeeping, its still spot on to the second :gold

Cal 1516 number 37059992, tested at Brescon on 24th June 1977 :-!


----------



## Bruce Reding

Outstanding! :-! Congrats and thanks for the wonderful pics.


----------



## CFR

jon12w said:


> Here is mine... I wanted one for the longest time and finally picked this one up a few weeks back... I love this watch! Over the past week of checking the timekeeping, its still spot on to the second


Congrats Jon! Great find. Hope you enjoy it as much as the rest of us enjoy 'em!


----------



## Stanford

Hi, Jon. Good to see the pics here. I bet you check its accuracy at least once every day - you won't be able to help it!


----------



## jon12w

Thanks everyone! Some of you know me but for those that dont I usually buy vintage divers... mostly Omega... ;-)

I have to say I rate this watch level with my most fave of my Divers, the Ploprof. For fit and finish and also wrist presence... 

I have checked it a bit.... :-x

Good to see you here Stanford! :-!


----------



## ausrandoman

*Here's 37057558*

No papers, no certificate, and had a hard life, judging by the dings on the case.


----------



## Bruce Reding

Here is a "final" tabulation of numbers for Omega MC 2400s that David (dwjwuest) has very kindly put together. It now has 88 serial numbers in it. As such, it is a powerful resource that is, as far as I know, unique on the web (or anywhere else outside of Omega for that matter).

I will be pulling together a final scatter plot from this. (To be frank, it may take me a while to do this, as work and family matters are beyond crazy.) As you may recall, earlier scatter plots had pretty much proven that the numbers of units made of each type (1511, 1516) as claimed by Omega were significantly off. I expect that this final plot will continue to bear this out, but we'll see.

In the meantime, *THANK YOU DAVID!!!* :-!:-!:-!


----------



## jon12w

David, looking at my entry it may help to substantiate it and make it bold with the following pic:



Interesting how all over the place the movt tests were... Looking forward to the graph 

Thanks for all the hard work guys!


----------



## dwjquest

Your calibre entry for serial number 37059992 is now in *BOLD*. Thanks for the scan.


----------



## peter w.

Joining this forum only this last weekend, I'm a latecomer to the marine chronometer project. Here is my contribution: cal. 1516, S/N 37061351, scan of both the movement and the case (excuse my rather poor picture taking skills). No papers, no certificate.
Peter


----------



## Bruce Reding

Hi Peter. Welcome to the forum, and thanks for the added info! 

Are you the original owner of this one, or did you get it recently?


----------



## Bruce Reding

A significant adder to our database! Number 34914493. This is 250 earlier than our earliest previous OMC. It indicates that the first of the three batches was a few hundred in size. 

Also, we know that one of the 1510 watches has a serial number of 34914422, which is quite close. This, combined with the general belief that 34xxxxxx serial numbers came from 1972 (Maddox), indicates to me that the non Marine Chronometer and the Marine Chronometer versions came out at pretty much the same time. (There is a statement in the Omegamania catalog that the MC version came out two years later than the non MC version, but we have seen that it is not a reliable source.) This, along with the facts that ...

1. the non MC version of this movement is also spec'ed to 10 seconds per year, and

2. The MC criteria as stated on the Chronometer certificates are extremely loose (and are in fact more in line with criteria for older, mechanical marine chronometers) 

... continues to bolster my suspicion that the only real difference between the MC and non MC versions is the certificate. If this is the case, then the tripled price for the MC version was a marketing triumph. It's fun to have the MC version (I value mine), but I'm not inclined to think that it's in any way superior to the 1510/1515 movements.


----------



## jon12w

I support your view Bruce... The testing cost money and I guess Omega had to stand by the warranty / timekeeping, but yes it does seem like a triumph. I would love to find a reason for the price difference... I still love my MC but id be sad if there really wasnt any difference...


----------



## Bruce Reding

Another adder ...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270193360441

37057103. Cal. 1516 movement (although the poor reproduction of the Besancon certificate states that it is a 1511, which is a bit odd). Went for a pretty penny!


----------



## assafisrael123

Hi. I bought the MC 37057103 which is sitting next to my non MC with sparkling lapis dial (see picture - sorry for the quality: I did not take the picture. will try to take one myself). Both are excellent time keepers to the second.


----------



## Bruce Reding

assafisrael123 said:


> Hi. I bought the MC 37057103 which is sitting next to my non MC with sparkling lapis dial (see picture - sorry for the quality: I did not take the picture. will try to take one myself). Both are excellent time keepers to the second.


Excellent pieces! I'm going to do the "final" graph soon, and will include yours. :-!


----------



## jon12w

Bruce... you can never do a 'final' graph... there will always be more


----------



## Bruce Reding

jon12w said:


> Bruce... you can never do a 'final' graph... there will always be more


Sigh. :-d


----------



## UltraMagnetic

I have 2 of my own and my cousin has one.

One was purchased on ebay years ago, the other I inherited from my Grandfather. My cousin liked mine so much I got him one.

We have no certs, nor do I know the "version" of these watches.

My favorite watch ever made. Glad to be a part of this thread/project!

Serial numbers:

37057235
37061462
37061583


----------



## Bruce Reding

Cool! Thanks for posting. Now I've really got to get off of my duff and update the scatter plot.


----------



## UltraMagnetic

Bruce Reding said:


> Cool! Thanks for posting. Now I've really got to get off of my duff and update the scatter plot.


no rush....my lil bro and good friend also own one...so there's 2 more for you.
:-!
probably wont have pics for a month or so because they are in Asia without their MC's!

Ian


----------



## CFR

You might hold the record for greatest number of OMC's in the same family!


----------



## UltraMagnetic

ha!...maybe.

My grandfather wore this while we were growing up........we all thought it was SO out-there, cause the shape n thickness of the case. Of course when I was old enough to know "better", I went a little nuts. Yes, we have 5 in my lil crew (one non-family)

You could keep everything in my collection before I let that one go|>|>|>|>

just the FINEST. ever.................................... IMO


----------



## mighty_morris

Hi bruce,

have you received my PM about adding my OMC serial to the database?

I've got a OMC cal. 1511 from 1974/1975 with a low serial nr. together with all papers/certificates!

i can send/post pics if wanted.

Just let me know.... :thanks


----------



## Bruce Reding

Hi "Mighty". Did I not reply to that? My apologies. Yes I did. Thanks! :-!

If you could post the same info with pics here that would be great. This thread is the repository of all things OMC.


----------



## mighty_morris

Hi,

i bought this one a month ago from the original owner and I'm very proud of it, considering the excellent state of it and it includes all original papers/certificates/manual/box + price tag!!!
(EDIT: ACTUALLY MY WIFE BOUGHT IT FOR ME)

Omega marine Chronometer
cal 1511
serial: 34916697
certificate nr: 333, issued on 17-dec-1975
watch bought on 6-march-1976 in Basel (Meyer & Co)


----------



## jon12w

Thats a beauty mate, well done!

(and well done for Bruce and his labour of love tracking these  )


----------



## Bruce Reding

mighty_morris said:


> ... ACTUALLY MY WIFE BOUGHT IT FOR ME)


Great catch! (And nice watch, too. :-d)


----------



## jimmoose

*One more new owner........#37058422*

Bought from the original owner. She is a 1516 cal from 1976.
She runs like a top and on the second for the last 21 days.
Although new to the HEQ forum and the Marine Chronometer,
I'm no stranger to Omega as the WUSOF is like home.
I've been reading about the HEQ watches and find it
amazing that the are capable of such fine timekeeping.
M4tt (Matt) gave me a "Heads Up" on this thread.
Glad to be in compnay with you fine guys.
jim moose
Here she is:


----------



## Fatpants

*Re: One more new owner........#37058422*

Welcome to the forum Jim:-!


----------



## jimmoose

*Re: One more new owner........#37058422*



Fatpants said:


> Welcome to the forum Jim:-!


Many thanks Alex!
jim


----------



## Bruce Reding

*Re: One more new owner........#37058422*



Fatpants said:


> Welcome to the forum Jim:-!


Second the motion. Welcome, Jim! :-!


----------



## jimmoose

*Re: One more new owner........#37058422*



Bruce Reding said:


> Second the motion. Welcome, Jim! :-!


Thank You Bruce.
A few more pics If you don't mind.
jim


----------



## M4tt

*Re: One more new owner........#37058422*

I think you will all enjoy Jim!

Welcome to the forum ... where's the livestock?


----------



## jimmoose

*Re: One more new owner........#37058422*



M4tt said:


> I think you will all enjoy Jim!
> 
> Welcome to the forum ... where's the livestock?


I think you are right Matt. This is one impressive timepiece.
I have never seen anything more accurate. It has been laying next
to my quartz, radio controlled clock for almost a month. It is to the second.
On the livestock front, meet my new friend Alphie. He is my bid asst.,
posting buddy and thread starter. A 10 day old Sabastapol goose and his sister Omie.

Thanks Matt.
jim


----------



## keitht

Whilst not a MC, i have recently aquired a MQ 2.4 cal 1510, with a 34 serial No, although i think they all had were!

Unfortunately mine is a non-runner, the motor module is completely mushed, i suspect somebody drove a dumper truck through it. I am hopeful the electronic module is Ok, although i cannot test it as my service manual is missing the Alitest section....anybody out there have that section? 

Interestingly, the caseback is stamped with a No, 2370 on mine, which if course doesn't tally with the 1000 pieces if this is a production No, although i suppose it could be sequential?? 

Some i know of, have numbering and others it appears do not.....a friend has informed me that it was thought, intially, to corrospond with the serial No's, but Omega dropped it so as to make the MC's higher price seem more attractive due to the Certification.

I have it on good authority that the production No's Omega quote are accurate for the Cal15**. with approx 500-600 movements produce in spares form....will we ever really know?? if Omega's own figures are incomplete or suspect, unless you track down every Cal15** made it is doubtful the speculation will ever be resolved....i for one, am just happy to own on of these great time-pieces...albeit a broken one...that will at some stage be brought back to its highly accurate former glory.

My apologies if this has been mentioned before....

Regards Keith


----------



## JulianS

Bruce Reding said:


> Folks,
> 
> Fellow HEQ forumner David Johnson (dwjquest) has been compiling serial numbers for Omega 2400 Marine Chronometers. I've attached his results to date. If you have a 2400, or have a picture of a 2400, that has a serial number other than those listed, we would appreciate it if you could post a picture of it with the serial number clearly showing or stated. If possible, it would also be nice to know if it has a 1511 or 1516 movement, and, if you have the Besancon certificate, the certificate number and date. (These are the first two entries on the certificate.) If you would prefer to remain anonymous, you may e-mail the pics and information to me, and I will see that David gets it.
> 
> The 2400 is a remarkable instrument that is unique in the annals of horology. Introduced in 1974, it was the first (and remains one of only three) wristwatch to use a megahertz range AT cut quartz crystal. This extremely demanding and cutting edge technology made it by far the most accurate wristwatch ever made to that time. Even today, few watches can outperform it. By compiling serial number information, we can make inferences about the production of this remarkable piece. For instance, from what David has already collected, we can infer that there were at least two distinct batches made. (Probably separated by the 1511 and 1516 versions.)
> 
> We appreciate your help in piecing together an intriguing bit of horo-history! :-!


Hi Bruce,

Better late than never I guess, Model s/n 37059342 was sold in Hong Kong in 1977 and is a cal. 1516 - still going strong with original box and all original paperwork inc. receipt, the shop that sold it is still owned by the same family and also going strong, I like family owned shops !

S/N 37059822 is also a Cal. 1516 and was bought on ebay as being in perfect condition. It arrived long dead, seller promises but does not send refund.... Everything appears to be there and I hope to resuscitate it.... anyone with suggestions on how to do so please let me know !

Cheers

Julian


----------



## Bruce Reding

Hi Julian,

Thanks for the input on the two serial numbers! If you don't mind, what was the Besancon certificate number and date for the one for which you have the papers? Also, would you happen to have pics?

Good to hear about the family shop. Not so good to hear about the eBay experience. Hope that works out. FYI -- a few of us here have lines on places that may be able to repair OMCs if you'd like.


----------



## CFR

*Sorry I didn't see this a month ago, Keith! . . .*

Regarding the 4-digit number stamped on the outside caseback of some, but not all, cal 1510 stainless steel casebacks, I was curious about those as well. They do not correspond to serial numbers, and I really wanted to know the inside story. I pursued this with Omega and, after they looked into it, told me that this number most likely corresponds to the Bescancon certificate for the movement in that particular watch. So yes indeed, some of the cal 1510s were also submitted for certification. To read more about this, see this old thread.


----------



## Gino

Hi Everyone,

I just came across some pictures I took at the London Science Museum when I was researching the Omega MC some years ago. The watch on display has the serial no. 34916347 and the documentation in the museum archives includes a letter dated December 1974:

‘ NEWS RELEASE

World's most accurate watch accepted by Science Museum.

Omega are proud to announce that the Science Museum in London has accepted a new electronic wrist watch with a guaranteed accuracy to within one second a month for permanent display in the time measurement gallery.’

I regrettably didn’t get the number of the chronometer certificate which was (is?) also included in the display.


----------



## dickstar

Hi all

I own two (have owned a further four) cal 1510 Megaquartz f2.4 stardusts

I have also just bought a Marine Chronometer cal 1511 serial number 34916637 with it's original Omega box but not MC certificates, so will be requesting a duplicate shortly.

Cheers Tom


----------



## dickstar

dickstar said:


> Hi all
> 
> I own two (have owned a further four) cal 1510 Megaquartz f2.4 stardusts
> 
> I have also just bought a Marine Chronometer cal 1511 serial number 34916637 with it's original Omega box but not MC certificates, so will be requesting a duplicate shortly.
> 
> Cheers Tom


My MQ2.4's next to a good freinds:


----------



## dickstar

My new baby:










Cheers Tom


----------



## G.S.

Hello out there, I am, so fare, the latest to join this superb thread about the OMC and about the 2 different calibers.

I finally found "my" MC and purchased it today. It is a ca. 1511 with the 1st generation case and has the Number: 37057282.
Unfortunately it came without any papers. I contacted Besancon now to get a copie of the certificate.

The watch needs some repairement on the bracelet and the case. Especially the chrystal has a lot of scratches.

Does anybody now if STS in Essex can fit a sapphire chrystal of the 1516 series instead of the mineral christal that was originally fitted to the 1511? How does it look like?

Btw, my example has this slightly yellow dials that looks great as it correspond pretty nice with the golden 14k bezel.

And here is a first pic:


----------



## dickstar

Hi Gunnar

Congratulations! PM sent re the STS side of things, to my knowledge they are the only Omega service centre that now service the Megaquartz 2400 family including the Marine Chronometer

The cystals for cal 1516 (smaller) cases do not fit the 1511 (larger) cases as they are slightly smaller! Also the 1516 crystal is no longer available! Luckily for you the 1511 cyrstal is available and can be fitted if and when you get the watch serviced.

Strangely my watch also has the yellowed hands, initially I thought they had just aged but according to STS they are original!

Cheers Tom


----------



## G.S.

Hi Tom,
thank you very very much for your quick and so clear support concerning my questions!:-!

I will try STS for my OMC and also for the Speedy 125...Great that they are so much faster there!

Today I wore the OMC the whole morning and this clear 'click' of the second is kind of relaxing. Good to wear history on one's wrist and beautiful to look at the perfect shape of this brick.

Cheers, Gunnar


----------



## dickstar

No probs mate

Happy to help! Yeah I have MQ2.4's running next to one another in the bedroom, I am lucky I am a heavy sleeper or I would be awake all the time! They have the reassuring sound of a rifle bolt!

A great watch, an icon in watch making and as you say, a piece of history on your wrist

Cheers Tom


----------



## Oldtimer2

Hi David. Don't know if you are still taking a "census" of Omega MC2400 serial numbers and certificate dates, but I've just received certificate copies from Besancon for my two MC 2400s...

(Incidentally, I had great service from Besancon but you may like to know that they now charge 15 Euros as a non-returnable search fee and 30 Euros for a duplicate certificate issue, if results found in their records).

Anyway, my watches:

*Cal 1511* Movement serial number: *37057563*
*Date* on test results print out: 2 July 1976

*Cal 1516* Movement serial number: *37060630*
*Date* on test results print out: 28 February 1977

My duplicate certificates only show the year of the calibration; the above dates are from the copies of the computer test data printouts that Besancon supply.

Cheers and many thanks for all your previous work!


----------



## dwjquest

Oldtimer2 said:


> Hi David. Don't know if you are still taking a "census" of Omega MC2400 serial numbers and certificate dates, but I've just received certificate copies from Besancon for my two MC 2400s...
> 
> (Incidentally, I had great service from Besancon but you may like to know that they now charge 15 Euros as a non-returnable search fee and 30 Euros for a duplicate certificate issue, if results found in their records).
> 
> Anyway, my watches:
> 
> *Cal 1511* Movement serial number: *37057563*
> *Date* on test results print out: 2 July 1976
> 
> *Cal 1516* Movement serial number: *37060630*
> *Date* on test results print out: 28 February 1977
> 
> My duplicate certificates only show the year of the calibration; the above dates are from the copies of the computer test data printouts that Besancon supply.
> 
> Cheers and many thanks for all your previous work!


Yes, I am still keeping track. Log all eBay sales, etc. I now have about 120 or so OMC's with pictures, certificates, etc. logged. If you would like to post some pictures, I will put them in the database.


----------



## G.S.

waiting with impatience for mine to return from service.....:roll:


----------



## bomier

Hello,

Today I bought my first Marine Chronometer.
I have number #37061161 no papers...:roll:
It is Cal 1516, this is a lovely watch and I am very happy!


----------



## G.S.

bomier said:


> Hello,
> 
> Today I bought my first Marine Chronometer.
> I have number #37061161 no papers...:roll:
> It is Cal 1516, this is a lovely watch and I am very happy!


Congrats! Yes, it is a lovely watch!
How is the precission of yours? Have u already tested?
Mine is for serviceing in the moment and I cant wait getting it back :-!


----------



## Bruce Reding

G.S. said:


> waiting with impatience for mine to return from service.....:roll:


Great pic! :-!


----------



## Bruce Reding

bomier said:


> Hello,
> 
> Today I bought my first Marine Chronometer.
> I have number #37061161 no papers...:roll:
> It is Cal 1516, this is a lovely watch and I am very happy!


Outstanding, bomier! We'll be interested in updates on performance.


----------



## dickstar

Interestingly rumor has it that JC's Marine Chronometer had a red second hand (for visibility)



G.S. said:


> waiting with impatience for mine to return from service.....:roll:


----------



## G.S.

Bruce Reding said:


> Great pic! :-!


Yeah, I would never ever work like this with my OMC on the wrist :-d One scratch and o|

Here are some more of the famous OMC pics available in the web:





































Cheers Gunnar


----------



## webvan

BTTT for a fascinating thread and kudos to all the collective work that went into it! As you might have guessed I am on the prowl for an OMC ;-)


----------



## dwjquest

webvan said:


> BTTT for a fascinating thread and kudos to all the collective work that went into it! As you might have guessed I am on the prowl for an OMC ;-)


The project is still underway as I now have about 125 OMC's in the photo database. I am still on the lookout for more. If you see any photos of OMC's, please let me know.

Thanks,
dwjquest


----------



## webvan

I probably don't have your latest list as it is dated 7/6/2007, but here is #34986533 with the 1511 which is well documented on this page : http://watchesz.free.fr/megaquartz2400.htm


----------



## dwjquest

Thanks, webvan. I guess I found that one after the 2007 list was produced.


----------



## Nalu

I've wondered why the MC and Stardust aren't covered much on OF - because it's all happening here! Just caught up on this thread and am happy to contribute to the registry.

I have Connie "Stardust" #34913143, cal.1510









And OMC #37060740, cal.1516. Bought used, no B&P, no chronometer certificate.


----------



## dwjquest

Thanks for the photos, I put them in the database.


----------



## Stanford

I just noticed that my pictures have disappeared from my original post so I've re-attached them, along with a couple of others....
The watch has had a full service and has been refurbished since these pictures - one day I'll get round to taking some new ones!




















Stanford said:


> I recently obtained this one. This is my first time on this forum so I hope both the text and pictures come out as intended.
> 
> One positive thing to come out of taking the pictures is that I can clearly see (from the pictures of the movement) that the bracelet pins are very bent and in urgent need of replacement!


----------



## webvan

1510 came in the other day : #34915022 and 4 digit number on the back : 2294

Sent an email to Besançon today to see if they had any info about tests they may have carried out at Omega's request back in the day.










On the matter of accuracy, how are OMC owners finding the accuracy of their watch ? My 1510 is dead on when worn (about +2spy) but drops to about -80spy at room temperature. Seems like a big variation for a 2.4Mhz crystal, on the other hand the fact that there is a quick seconds adjustment likely means frequent adjustments were expected.

Also judging by Stanford's certificate just above, it seems his was tested to have a maximum daily variation of -0.456spd, i.e. 166spy so absolute accuracy is not the whole story for a marine chronometer.


----------



## watchhound

I am curious - is it possible to keep these watches going long-term? In other words, given the uniqueness of the movement, will there come a time when it cannot be repaired or parts replaced?


----------



## Eeeb

watchhound said:


> I am curious - is it possible to keep these watches going long-term? In other words, given the uniqueness of the movement, will there come a time when it cannot be repaired or parts replaced?


Long term? Well, I guess the answer is yes since these watches are pushing 40 years old already. Forever? Well, that depends on how much money you want to pay - just like with any other watch.


----------



## webvan

webvan said:


> On the matter of accuracy, how are OMC owners finding the accuracy of their watch ? My 1510 is dead on when worn (about +2spy) but drops to about -80spy at room temperature. Seems like a big variation for a 2.4Mhz crystal, on the other hand the fact that there is a quick seconds adjustment likely means frequent adjustments were expected.
> 
> Also judging by Stanford's certificate just above, it seems his was tested to have a maximum daily variation of -0.456spd, i.e. 166spy so absolute accuracy is not the whole story for a marine chronometer.


Yes it seems accuracy is not necessary THE major point of a Marine Chronometer as the tolerance is +3s/d based on the above certificate.

Anyone with a 151x had a chance to look into the accuracy of their watch and notable the variations between worn/unworn ? Had my 1510 for a couple of weeks now and the worn/unworn (24 hours a day) variation is around 100spy, which is a bit disappointing, especially since my Omega 1310 beta 21 is amazingly stable at -5/+5 in the same testing conditions !


----------



## webvan

Bruce Reding said:


> Could they have been the 1510s? (Do we have serial numbers for _any _1510? That could tell us a lot.)


Three numbers here, two blue dials and one stardust : 
- 34913496
- 34915022
- 34915065

And another 1516 for the road : 
- 37059605

Only the 34915022 is mine unfortunately, the others belong to a friend ;-)

On another matter I was recently told that the OMC's made for France (Europe ?) had to have steel bezel fitted to them as it was illegal to use 14k gold in France. Here's what it looks like, not bad, it's a 1511 :


----------



## webvan

A few more seen on eBay mostly over the past few months, with comments when applicable:

34916330 - 1511 - Not working, Dial damaged
34916357 - 1511 - Now working, Dial damaged, crown missing, movement corroded (sold for $600!)
34916425 - 1511 - Runs slow
34916633 - 1511 - Not working (could be 34916632) - sold for €338
34916741 - 1511
37057096 - 1511 - Papers
37057513 - 1511
37058219 - 1516 - Papers
37058417 - 1516 - Papers
37058624 - 1516 - NOS
37059816 - 1516
37059955 - 1511
37060037 - 1516 - NOS (movement with different number?)
37060300 - 1516
37060859 - 1516 - Papers
37061197 - 1516
37061431 - 1516 - Papers
37061597 - 1516 


- Does look like the 1000 vs 8000 number came from 34xx vs 37xx serials rather than 1511 vs 1516
- The 37059955 - 1511 is a bit of an oddity being sandwiched in between 1516s

Hope that helps!


----------



## KARNAK

Hi All,
I know this an old thread but can anyone tell me if the number 37057309 on an OMEGA MARINE CHRONOMETER is a Model 1511 or 1516 as he owner does know, just is the watch is for sale and I was thinking of putting in a bid on it.
Many thanks,
KARNAK


----------



## webvan

Probably a 1516 given the late serial number but some 1511's had a 37xx serial too as seen above. Can't you get a picture of the movement?


----------



## dwjquest

KARNAK said:


> Hi All,
> I know this an old thread but can anyone tell me if the number 37057309 on an OMEGA MARINE CHRONOMETER is a Model 1511 or 1516 as he owner does know, just is the watch is for sale and I was thinking of putting in a bid on it.
> Many thanks,
> KARNAK


Here are some serial numbers and calibres

37057048 1511
37057295 1511
37057363 1511
37057468 1511
37057535 1511
37057623 1511

37057753 1516
37057812 1516
37057929 1516
37058157 1516

Based on these serial numbers, I would say the watch is a calibre 1511.


----------



## scottown

3705795 serial number with a 1511 movement. Looks to all original and runs perfectly. Will get pics up later.


----------



## webvan

Did you mean 37057295 ? Looking forward to your pics. I was going to make an offer at the price you got it for when I had to leave for an unexpected trip, you snooze you lose ;-)


----------



## Charnwood

Where does one locate the serial no. in a constellation MQ? Time for the screwdriver to take off the case back?


----------



## scottown

Quick iPhone shot. She's off to Switzerland for a complete overhaul.


----------



## Eeeb

Off to Omega service?? It was thought they would no longer service these...


----------



## webvan

yep, is Omega/Bienne handling them again?

I see it's 37057095 not 37057295 as the 1511 that sold on eBay at the end of August and that had been overhauled in Bienne in early 2009...I was guessing that was before STS took over.


----------



## ronalddheld

Mine was sent back from Omega without being serviced.


----------



## webvan

...and when was that?


----------



## ronalddheld

I do not recall, exactly, several years ago.


----------



## scottown

*> mine is on it's way back*

From Switzerland unserviced. You would have thought that the crew @ Omega NJ, would have known what they service and what they do not. Mine runs great, just asked them to replace the crystal and gaskets - no go.


----------



## webvan

*Re: > mine is on it's way back*

Yes, not that surprising though, a lot of the staff you meet in official shops don't seem to have much of a clue...send them the link to this thread from 2008 -> https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/message-omega-re-vintage-heq-repair-118386.html


----------



## Shipi

*Hi guys*
*My* *Omega 2400 Marine Chronometer stopped working I had the battery changed but still no luck I sent it to Omega repair center they sent it back said can't do anything what say you? Is there anyone out there who can make it work again?
Regards
Shipi*


----------



## webvan

Yes, see my reply from yesterday to that same question.


----------



## McAllan

Am I the only one wishing Omega would make a new edition of this wonderful watch? It's just as wonderful on the outside as on the inside. Simple but still standing the test of time without looking like an old mans watch.

Unless by luck stumbling upon one not demanding the price they're fetching on eBay I'll probably never get the old one.

As people probably have seen in some of my posts I'm into a bit of calculator collecting too. After much demand by both collectors, fans and signing petitions HP have made the classic & legendary 15C again (unfortunately I was late for the first batch. Hoping they'll make some more :-d).

So my point is perhaps Omega could be "talked" into making it again. Although only on the outside a reissue because as with the HP which processor (Voyager) is long out of production - so is much of the technology used in the original OMC (really the HP 15C is "just" the same hardware as the newer 12C but with other firmware - the 12C has never been out of production though the inside has undergone severe changes since the early 80s).

I could imagine a new edition almost identical to the original except for perhaps some dial markings/text (read on).
The changes: The moving coil is a fragile construction so obviously a new design would opt for a stepper motor. That would probably be good for both noise, battery life and knocking issues of the old one. Perhaps they even could make it tick twice a second like many old quartz marine chronometers - sweeping hand would IMHO not be appropriate even though technically possible - remembering it shall be true to early quartz marine chronometers even though not an exact copy. Therefore IMHO ticking twice a second would be a nice addition even no watches used it back then (and not all marine chronometer clock).

And of course the electronics must be changed too. Today it's no bigger challenge keeping battery drain down even at 4 MHz. So they don't need any tricks to divide the frequency and so can choose more freely but I could imagine either 2.1, 2.4, 3.15 or 4.19 MHz - probably the 2.1 MHz would be the obvious choice today.
There's something about being true to the old way of doing things even though they choose a different frequency. Of course they could also just use a TC 32 KHz but that would IMHO not be true to the original and technically not make it different from the rest of the bunch of new watches and in many ways deep boring for those of us interested in the technology behind - the inside. If redesigning for a stepper there would probably even be space for a larger lithium cell making the larger draw of the higher frequency even less of an issue.

And finally although not a definite demand make them with and without gold beezel like the french one. Perhaps make case and bracelet a harder titanium alloy like some Citizen watches and a hard alloy SS color for the beezel (tungsten carbide like early Rado) etc. to make it better withstand scratches without altering the looks.


----------



## webvan

Yep, that would be a brave move by Omega !

Here's something I just posted that should be of interest to those following this thread : https://www.watchuseek.com/f9/omega-2-4mhz-megaquartz-collected-pictures-facts-605461.html ;-)


----------



## soegaard

*Re: > mine is on it's way back*

If anybody still is interested in this project I can add my version with cal. 1516.
JK


----------



## dwjquest

*Re: > mine is on it's way back*



soegaard said:


> If anybody still is interested in this project I can add my version with cal. 1516.
> JK


I am still gathering pictures and information regarding the OMC's. Thanks for your input.


----------



## Jaguar E

*Re: > mine is on it's way back*

Hi

My 2 Marine Chronograph for your Register:

ST 398.0836 / 198.074 - Calibre 1511 - No. 349 16598 - Tested 02. Sept. 1975 - Sale-Date 20. Jan. 1978 in DK-Kobenhavn - in a Wooden-Mahogany-Box with Brass Inlays, inside a Brass-Plate with engraved "Marine Chronometer" + "OMEGA Megaquartz-2400"

ST 398.0832 / 198.0082 - Calibre 1516 - No. 370 60300 - Tested 31. Jan. 1977

Cheers


----------



## Eeeb

*Re: > mine is on it's way back*



Jaguar E said:


> Hi
> 
> My 2 Marine Chronograph for your Register:
> 
> ST 398.0836 / 198.074 - Calibre 1511 - No. 349 16598 - Tested 02. Sept. 1975 - Sale-Date 20. Jan. 1978 in DK-Kobenhavn - in a Wooden-Mahogany-Box with Brass Inlays, inside a Brass-Plate with engraved "Marine Chronometer" + "OMEGA Megaquartz-2400"
> 
> ST 398.0832 / 198.0082 - Calibre 1516 - No. 370 60300 - Tested 31. Jan. 1977
> 
> Cheers


Ohhhh... TWO! 

Pics including shots of the numbers appeals to both the ascetic and cataloging .... THANKS!


----------



## webvan

*Re: > mine is on it's way back*

Well there is a 1511 and a 1516, thinking of getting a pair myself ;-)

Yes pictures would be great, especially of the box as it's not clear what the original box(es) looked like.


----------



## ahaseeb

Hi , Hope you all are fine in 2013  . I have Crystal for Marine Chronometer , Just want to confirm that the crystal can use for both Watches ( either cal 1511 or 1516 ) ?


----------



## webvan

No they are different.


----------



## nii

Unfortunately mine came without papers....


----------



## webvan

You can certainly get a copy of the tests performed at the Observatoire de Besançon if you're interested though, they charged about €45 for that if memory serves. In any case it seems to be in a great shape, congrats!


----------



## rivest

Hi guys if anyone of you has a mint MC to sell, please PM me.


----------



## webvan

Surely there must be more owners of an Omega 2.4Mhz Marine Chronometer ;-)

I recently got my grubby hands on the rare 1511 French all stainless steel version and it's pretty decent in terms of accuracy : 0.007 s/d, i.e. 2.5 s/y ;-)


----------



## ronalddheld

Mine still needs repair work done. I do not seem to allocate funds to do do.


----------



## webvan

That can be costly indeed... What seems to be the problem?


----------



## ronalddheld

webvan said:


> That can be costly indeed... What seems to be the problem?


I do not recall in detail, but it needs some parts replaced.


----------

