\| View Thread \| Return to Index \| Read Prev Msg \| Read Next Msg \|

For me it's sufficiant.

Posted By: Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) <tz@moonwatch.de> (p3ee0f8d9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)
Date: 9/25/1 - 18:19:34

In Response To: I agree with Chuck on this ... (Gerry L.)

Hi Gerry,

We know us from a business we had together some 2 years ago. I don't remember which watch I bought, but as far as I remember it was a smooth deal.

With regard to the topic: I don't want to make a science of my passion - collecting Omega watches. The last time the science touched me was, when I received my master degree. I know very well that collecting can turn to be an obsession, but I seem not to be on this stage yet. There is no scientific approach in my addiction to watches.

Although saying that, I would be very interested in getting more information and I would appreciate, if you tried to receive them over your connections.
For me I'm satisfied from all the evidence we already have and I'm deeply convinced, that NASA's official Moonwatch after the second tests in 1972 was a 861. It's at least my personal opinion from all I've read.

If the answer to that question was really so essential for me, I would try to write to somebody who definately will know about it for example one of the astronauts of Apollo 17. If one of them still has the watch, he could easily describe the logo.
Or maybe I would ask Marco Richon directly to that special question. It should be easy for him. They have all the files on every watch they produced. They will certainly know, whether they delivered the 861 to NASA or not and if yes, they will know the dates.

Aloha to you,
Michael

Messages in This Thread

What makes you so suspicious? Here comes more... - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/24/1 - 16:49:32
- I agree with Chuck on this ... - Gerry L. -- 9/24/1 - 22:47:55
  - For me it's sufficiant. - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/25/1 - 18:19:34
    - As long as it's expressed that way, I have no difficulties with > - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/25/1 - 23:34:02
      - Not a matter. - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/26/1 - 17:06:44
        
        NASA docs cast additional light (& doubt) on your theories...> - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/27/1 - 00:31:38
        
        More additional light - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/27/1 - 21:18:18
        
        As for me, I'll continue to search for the answer. Pt . 2 - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/28/1 - 07:56:12
        
        As for me, I'll continue to search for the answer. Pt 1 - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/28/1 - 07:17:42
        
        But wait... There's more... > - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/27/1 - 09:47:21
        
        Sorry for double posting! (nt) - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/26/1 - 17:08:35
      - Not a matter. - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/26/1 - 17:05:05
    - Hi Michael, - Gerry L. -- 9/25/1 - 21:23:18
  - The Scientific Method... & a personal note... --> - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/25/1 - 13:56:17
    - Chuck - you flatter me. Thanks ... - Gerry L. -- 9/25/1 - 16:35:42
      - Without ... would we have ... ? > - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/25/1 - 18:08:25
        
        Chuck - we have GOT to get together! - Gerry L. -- 9/25/1 - 21:24:59
        
        I would be happy to. The question then becomes: - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/25/1 - 22:54:44
- Circumstantial evidence is not conclusive... > - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/24/1 - 19:43:54
  - This debate should go in TZ classics! - Timothy -- 9/24/1 - 22:29:59

\| View Thread \| Return to Index \| Read Prev Msg \| Read Next Msg \|

Omega Watch Forum - Page 4
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15