176.007 and Cal.1040 Family Review

Here is my Omega Seamaster “Yachting” Ref. 176.010


View attachment 822815

Hi All:

Like you all, I am also a lover of Omega 1960s and 1970s chronos.

I have wanted a silver dialed (with baby blue hands) 176.007 for a while now, but have not been able to find a good example. Often, they are in rather poor condition.

May I ask if you good folks might have an idea where I might be able to make inquiries and possibly find one please?

Thank you.

This one is on the wrist today.

Grasshopper BWC

I’ve been looking at the 1040s for a while and yesterday this finally landed on my doorstep.

It’s a one-owner 176.007 with all original parts (AFAIK) What settled the deal for me was the box and paper set along with the original corfam strap.

The case obviously shows that it has been worn but the sunburst brushing still remains and the dial and hands are flawless.

Other notable mentions for this one are the needle hand minutes and the double signed case back with both 007 and 001.

This thread and https://www.calibre1040.com/ were essential for narrowing in on this example. So thanks to @cvalue13 and especially @Andy K for both his second hand and first hand help.

Onward & upward,
jeppe

Stunning example. Congratulations!

Gorgeous. I’m on a slow hunt for one of these.

Thanks @timestamp 👍

Thanks @Yak1. Happy hunting and good luck.

@westmouth posted this on another thread, noting the 'bases' on the pusher/case. Re-posting those photos here for posterity

Here is mine, 176.007. Bought it as unpolished. I realy love the design. Have also a 1170 bracelet, what I need is the 653 end piece.

Here some puctures

Had this one for a while now but not worn it much in the last few years. Picked up an OEM mesh this week to see if I can rekindle the flame, as it were..

Wow, nice one

Just came across this article from Monochrome in 2014 regarding the Yachting 176.010, and thought I'd add here:

https://monochrome-watches.com/in-d...ious-rare-regatta-chronograph-from-the-1970s/

And also adding this discussion regarding a supposed cal.1040 prototype, of which one or two (or the same dial) have popped up here and there:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/omega-cal-1040-prototype-176-001-from-a-dealer.107302/#post-1406998

Here's some weirdness that just ended on eBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Watch-Omeg...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649


-Non-omega case
-Service rotor on genuine cal. 1040
-Unknown bezel (but not for cal. 1040)
-176.010 hands
-176.005 dial
-Described as "Reassembly or prototype"
-Sold for 1,110 euro.

@Andy K ’s post reminded me that I might place a reference on this thread to this other post:

James Bond and Omega 176.007 - spotted

Just bumped into this old thread while searching for some 176.007 info. What a great source. Super work and great examples. This thread needs a bump in 2020!

Found a nice 176.007 in January.

First owner‘s wife sold it to me (he died in 2018). Promised her to take care and wear it in good health.

The watch got a service and will get a lot wrist time this summer.

BTW these blue dials are real stunners🥰

Hi guys ! looks like it is the official thread for cal1040 and especially 176.007 !

Felt in love in a youtube video from Mr Porter beginning of 2020 and wanted one since. Priority was another watch but finally..... found this one, bought it and received it yesterday !
I will wait a little bit before going for the 'other' priority watch 😗



Here is the Mr Porter video :

In the spirit of collecting cal.1040 things here, I happened upon the video linked below - published on YouTube by 'WATCH CHRONICLER' in Aug. of 2020, and titled "SOVIET SPEEDMASTER: The Omega Watches Worn by Cosmonauts"

The video is in part an ode to the cal.1040, and specifically the author's own 176.002 (Speedmaster Mark III), as well as the 178.002 (the "125," with the cal.1041 movement). In particular, the author gives a brief argument for why the cal.1040 was an ideal "sort of Flightmaster [but] for space flight."

As far as the details of Russian space history reported in the video, I don't vouch, I only find interesting; likely, folks such as @SpeedyPhill could cite chapter and verse as to grey areas, missinfo, etc.

[EDIT: indeed, @SpeedyPhill had already covered his corrections here, and notes
That caveat given, the video still provides one introductory view of how 1970's more 'forward looking' Omega sport watches such as the cal.1040 family were passed over by NASA but more readily adopted by the Russian space program. Other such 'forward looking' 1970s Omegas used by cosmonauts and discussed in the video are the Flightmaster and Alaska Project.

My summary of the video author's take: for some reason NASA "stuck" with the 'regular' Speedmaster though the 1970's, eschewing the 1970's technological advancements offered to NASA by Omega; the Russians, meanwhile, we're more eager to take aboard such advancements.

To the degree this theme is true, it is a rather interesting and romantic subplot to the cal.1040s roll in space travel through the 1970s.

A few comments assertions made in the video, as relates to the subject of this cal.1040 thread:

-> Discussing the Mark III being the first automatic Speedmaster, the author states the Mark III was launched in 1971. I'm dubious of the 1971 exactness with respect to the Mark III; while the cal.1040 (in the form of the 176.007) can more certainly be attributed to 1971, I don't know of anything confirming the Mark III (an offering made subsequent to the 176.007) having also left the gates within 1971. My bet (as reflected in the genealogy in the post at the top of this thread), places the Mark III as more likely a 1972 offering. But, perhaps a Russian space enthusiast may be able to correlate a 1971 photograph of cosmonauts wearing a Mark III, and lay that uncertainty to rest?

-> Still regarding the point of the Mark III being the first automatic Speedmaster, I'd add for completeness that the Mark III was also the first Speedmaster to offer a date complication, as well as a 24hr indicator ... which 24hr indicator is my personal focus regarding Russian cosmonauts and the cal.1040 movements, discussed below.

-> On the author's mostly general assertions that the Russians were attracted to the 'advanced technology' of Omega's 1970's, the author only explicitly suggests that the Russians were attracted to automatic winding offered by the cal.1040 family watches. He doesn't otherwise go into much detail about why automatic would be so preferred, or whether any other features that may have been attractive to cosmonauts for any specific reason.

My opinion is that automatic winding would have been of secondary attraction to cosmonauts compared to another advanced feature of the cal.1040 watches. Specifically, the cal.1040 family watches offer 24hr indicators, which are particularly useful during space travel - as well as being uniquely useful to Russian cosmonauts.

First: why is a 24hr indicator uniquely useful to Russians? In short (and glossing over much detail and history), Russians primarily use 24 hour time in both technical and colloquial time-telling (in contrast to western countries that, derivative of British colonization, use 12hr time-telling colloquially and only 24hr time-telling when precision in required, e.g., in aeronautics, medicine, etc.). That Russian's use 24hr time-telling is why so many Russian-built watches have 24hr movements. So, a 12hr timepiece such as the 'normal' Speedmaster would have been somewhat unnatural to Russians, whereas the addition of a 24hr indicator in the cal.1040 watches would offer a touch of familiarity.

Second: a 24hr indicator is of critical importance during space travel (that is, as 'critical' as any wristwatch feature may be to space travel). In orbit, the sun can "rise" and "set" as often as every 90 minutes or so, and as a result the notions of "day" and "night" are unavailable for discerning the actual time on a 12hr dial.

Consider just one thought experiment: if a person woke up in space and was asked the time, using only a 12hr dial (such as the 'normal' Speedmaster) their answer would be only a guess, and they would have only a 50/50 chance of getting the answer correct; but if a person woke up in space wearing a cal.1040, the 24hr indicator would allow the astronaut to know time with accuracy.

Because Russians typically use 24hr time-telling anyway, and because 24hr indicators are particularly useful in space travel, I would guess that the 24hr indicator in the cal.1040 family was particularly attractive to Russian cosmonauts. I'd go so far as to bet (on instinct alone) that the 24hr indicator would have been more attractive than automatic winding focused on by the video's author (though, even better to have both - and why not the date, too.).

I'll birdwalk momentarily to note that I've always found it curious that NASA stuck with the pure chronograph Speedmasters through the 1970's, despite Omega specifically designing and offering to NASA models with 24hr indicators. On one view, NASA's rejection of models with 24hr indicators could be taken as evidence that NASA did not find 24hr indication to be important to their crews - but I think that view is untenable. I'll give four reasons.

> For one, NASA missions (like most aviation) use GMT time and 24hr clocks; so, all else being equal, it would seem more than just convenient if an astronaut's wristwatch were also in a 24hr format (or at bare minimum, include a 24hr indicator).

> For two, as described earlier, a 24hr timepiece is less prone to error or confusion in space, all else being equal, compared to a 12hr timepiece (and reducing error and confusion in space seems more than just a nicety). This is, after all, why NASA uses GMT and 24hr clocks.

> For three, there is historical support that NASA itself recognized the importance of 24hr time-telling for their astronauts: in training for Mercury 7, NASA ordered specially-made LeCoultre 24hr watches for the Mercury astronauts to become accustomed to reading 24-hour time due to the practical limitations of 12hr time-telling in space (an introductory glance at this history is provided in this otherwise amazing article about the chap who found and purchased John Glenn's 'Mercury 7' LeCoultre).

> Fourth/finally, there is also ample evidence that many NASA astronauts brought along personal timepieces with either a true 24hr movements (such as astronaut Scott Carpenter's personal Breitling Navitimer Cosmonaute worn on NASA's Mercury-Atlas 7 mission) or a GMT/24hr indicator complication (such as the numerous personal Rolex GMT's taken along by various NASA astronauts). These personal choices do not seem an accident, given reasons one through 3 above.

For all these reasons, it is curious that 24hr chronograph timepieces were not heavily favored for NASA missions (once available and robust).
I can understand if NASA chose for space travel the 12hr Speedmaster over, e.g., the 24hr LeCoultre because the former was far more robust to endure space travel; but I continue to wonder why NASA later eschewed presumably equally robust offerings that included 24hr indicators. Clearly, somewhere in the mix, all else was not equal at NASA.

But, as for the Russians, I would guess that 24hr indicators were at least as attractive an offering as automatic winding. (And, I would consider, that the NASA astronaut's personal timepiece choices indicate that their preferences were not too dissimilar from their Russian peers?)

A contrary point: before using the cal.1040 family watches, the Russian's appeared to also use the Flightmaster. But they purportedly used the cal.911 version of Flightmaster, which version deleted the 24hr indicator in favor of running-seconds (and it's worth clarifying also that the Flightmaster's 2nd time zone hand was only a 12hr hand, with no ability to discern AM/PM without the deleted 24hr indicator).

Any of our space enthusiasts have a view on why NASA stuck with the 'regular' Speedmaster, when the Russians did not? More evidence for or against the musings above?