321 Ed White Showdown - Old vs New

Posts
5
Likes
9
Put this on the Rolexforums, but thought it only right to make sure it was here on the Omegaforums as well!

I have the unique opportunity of owning both the new 321 Ed White alongside the venerable 105.003 original Ed White from 1965. Wanted to share some photos for y'all.

I'll tell ya - it was a very confusing flip-floppy trial period in trying to figure out which one to keep and which one to put on the chopping block.

Ultimately decided to hold onto the vintage example, but boy, do both have equally compelling reasons to stay in the collection... Now, onto installing the correct 24 tooth flat foot crown on the 105.003!

 
Posts
215
Likes
179
really nice set. I would also have kept the vintage one as it is in stellar condition. very nice pictures by the way.
 
Posts
2,147
Likes
4,294
Is there a hint of chocolate on the vintage? The dark black bezel gives the vintage watch a dramatic look IMO.
 
Posts
673
Likes
1,460
The new one is better than most tired looking vintage examples. Nice condition vintage beats the new one. From certain angles the new one is better but hesalite/aluminium works better from all angles. The new one looks great under direct sunlight or under bright lights.

 
Posts
7,055
Likes
13,163
The new one is better than most tired looking vintage examples. Nice condition vintage beats the new one. From certain angles the new one is better but hesalite/aluminium works better from all angles. The new one looks great under direct sunlight or under bright lights.
And a vastly superior bracelet in every way. The 1960 era bracelet quality was low compared to today.
 
Posts
185
Likes
477
the new pictures shows us the condition from the vintage one much better

so for reason of the lume the winner - for me - is the "old"
 
Posts
1,478
Likes
9,252
Interesting to compare the bezels: the vintage font is much bigger! Don't know why Omega chose to make a so different detail when one sees the effort they made to copy the original on all other points...
 
Posts
673
Likes
1,460
the new pictures shows us the condition from the vintage one much better

so for reason of the lume the winner - for me - is the "old"
Different watches though
 
Posts
673
Likes
1,460
Interesting to compare the bezels: the vintage font is much bigger! Don't know why Omega chose to make a so different detail when one sees the effort they made to copy the original on all other points...
So they can release a “true vintage” version with hesalite and perfect DON in a few years 🤗
 
Posts
6,333
Likes
11,711
Great comparison, but IMHO such Speedmaster chronographs need a far better watchstand... one with 1/6th Ed White and his Gold visor
(Photos: MoonwatchUniverse)
.
.
Post Scriptum: I was advised to put some kind of "watermark" over my photos as these are used/stolen for instagram without mentioning the source!
 
Posts
673
Likes
1,460
Here's what the modern 321 Ed White would have looked like with hesalite and an aluminium insert!

Edited:
 
Posts
107
Likes
431
Great comparison, but IMHO such Speedmaster chronographs need a far better watchstand... one with 1/6th Ed White and his Gold visor
(Photos: MoonwatchUniverse)
.
.
Post Scriptum: I was advised to put some kind of "watermark" over my photos as these are used/stolen for instagram without mentioning the source!
Where can I order one?
 
Posts
6,333
Likes
11,711
Where can I order one?
Bespoke figurine, made for " 50 years Gemini IV " ...
Note on the plaque I had the exact type of Omega Speedmaster wrong as I always thought this was a Speedmaster 105.003-64... but in 2015 Omega (finally) revealed it was a 105.003-63
It also took Omega many decades to realise both McDvitt and White each wore 2 Speedies... so 4 Speedmaster chronographs on Gemini IV
MoonwatchUniverse has always been nagging to get the tiniest details of NASA-issued Omega Speedmaster chronographs 😉
.
 
Posts
6,788
Likes
21,969
And a vastly superior bracelet in every way. The 1960 era bracelet quality was low compared to today.

Quality-wise, I think you’re correct. “Superior” is open to discussion.

You can lengthen and shorten the 1035/7912 bracelets via the spring links with nothing more than a wooden chopstick. Plus, those spring links accommodate nicely to weather changes. And my understanding is that the new Ed White bracelet does not have an on-the-fly length adjustment feature, whereas with the old flat-links, all you need is a toothpick.

For me, the old flat-links win every time.
 
Posts
673
Likes
1,460
I like both bracelets, the new one does feel sturdier than the 60 year old 1035 though.

 
Posts
56
Likes
29
Nice presentation. I probably would have tried to keep both.

So the vintage one has Hesalite crystal, solid caseback and an aluminum bezel, whereas the new one as a sapphire crystal, a exhibition caseback and an ceramic bezel...did I miss any differences?

What is the significance of the DON (dot over ninety)? Everyone seems to talk about it, why is it a thing?
 
Posts
7,055
Likes
13,163
You can lengthen and shorten the 1035/7912 bracelets via the spring links with nothing more than a wooden chopstick. Plus, those spring links accommodate nicely to weather changes. And my understanding is that the new Ed White bracelet does not have an on-the-fly length adjustment feature, whereas with the old flat-links, all you need is a toothpick.
The modern 321 has a half link (about 3mm) adjustment built into the clasp, like the old ones you use a toothpick to use it. A properly sized bracelet shouldn't need more than a half link adjustment in the field to allow for weather changes. The 3861 bracelet only gives you about a half link adjustment with its fancy push button clasp. Toothpicks FTW.
Edited:
 
Posts
132
Likes
310
N njlam
Nice presentation. I probably would have tried to keep both.

So the vintage one has Hesalite crystal, solid caseback and an aluminum bezel, whereas the new one as a sapphire crystal, a exhibition caseback and an ceramic bezel...did I miss any differences?

What is the significance of the DON (dot over ninety)? Everyone seems to talk about it, why is it a thing?
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think it’s simply a case that earlier references had them, were frequently replaced at service with dot next to ninety bezels; making the DON’s more valuable many years later.

Fifty (or sixty) years ago maintaining originality of parts for future collectibility was rarely if ever considered.
 
Posts
132
Likes
310
The modern 321 has a half link (about 3mm) adjustment built into the clasp, like the old ones you use a toothpick to use it. A properly sized bracelet shouldn't need more than a half link adjustment in the field to allow for weather changes. The 3861 bracelet only gives you about a half link adjustment with its fancy push button clasp. Toothpicks FTW.
Somehow the Ed White is one of the few bracelets I’ve never had a day of uncomfort with, have never needed to adjust it either.