A question for Speedy owners, preferably those with experience handling both 321 and 861 Speedies.

Can you feel a difference in the chronograph start/stop/reset of a 321 versus an 861?

In my limited experience of having handled a few 861's – I found the tactile experience to be a little... stilted. Not smooth...with a thud or "click/ping" at the end, especially when starting.

I feel like I read somewhere that this feels differently with 321's, that the action is more ...even, perhaps requiring less force? Others have relayed to me in other conversations that there is zero difference.

Curious what you've observed specifically with regard to the feeling of starting, stopping and resetting the chronograph across these different movements. And yes, granted that any movement will perform poorly in this regard if not properly serviced – so let's stipulate a controlled environment, with brand new movements,...could you tell the difference? If so, please explain.

Could also be interesting to hear a comparison with a modern-era 1861. Or, what the hell, ...mention a chrono with a different feeling that you like more or less and why.

 

Yeah that's true - while I can't really discern a big difference on start/stop, the 321 does seem to reset with one fluid motion, where the 861 resets with a smiliar "click" as the start/stop. So I'd have to amend my previous comments a bit!

Nicest pusher feel I've felt was either the Valjoux 72 in my Heuer Carrera 2447, or the modern Jaeger-LeCoultre 751G in my Deep Sea Chronograph.

 

Hmmm...in my experience, the 321 feels different than an 861, but the difference is more on stop/start rather than the reset. The reset mechanism on the 861 and 321 are for the most part the same design with only fairly minor differences. BTW the column wheel doesn't come into play (nor does the cam) on reset as that only switches for the start/stop function.

The way the column wheel is operated, using a hook that pulls on the wheel somewhat tangentially, seems to have more mechanical advantage to it than the way the cam is simply pushed back and forth (in a way that seems more like using brute force to me). I should try to find a way to measure the force needed - if can jury rig something to measure and make a comparison I'll do that.

Each watch uses different springs in these locations, so different lengths and mounting locations between calibers. Even between two examples of the same caliber those springs may apply slightly different forces depending on their age and condition, as worn or bent springs may have an effect on the force needed.

The discussion of "feel" is difficult at times, because as noted the condition of the movement may not be known when doing a comparison, but also because of the influence of the actual pushers and their condition. How much of what you are feeling is from the movement as compared to the pushers, and overcoming the springs inside the pusher, and the friction of the seal on the pusher cap? Is the pusher cap packed with dirt?

I make my comments above about the feel eliminating case issues because I operate the pushers out of the case all the time when servicing, using a movement holder with pushers on it:



So I am using the same set of pushers all the time when actuating the chronograph parts and can make a comparison that eliminates at least one variable anyway...

Cheers, Al

 

nice lolli!

 

Superb response @Archer – thanks. Was hoping to have you pull back the curtain on this, and interested to hear what you find out.

I thought a little more about how to describe the (somewhat) jarring action as I've experienced it on the 861's ...and it's not a perfect example but, I guess something viscerally analogous could be a hand held paper hole puncher ...but when there is a little more paper than it was designed to handle in the breach?



So applied pressure is almost entirely resisted — until it isn't.

Where I think the ideal action would be some initial give but with increased resistance that eventually gives way at the peak... Maybe more like ...a cigar cutter?

I'll sleep on it.

 

Got to agree about the V72.

The smoothness, perfect weighting and response (Als comments about variation due to pusher condition notwithstanding) of the pusher action is wonderful.

 

I needed to remind myself that when it all hits the fan ...accidentally stopping a chronograph with a gentle bump of your wrist against a colleague, or by brushing up against the wall of your space capsule, ...or as a result of having gripped the pushers too firmly with clumsy fingers behind the layers of a spacesuit – could literally be a matter of life and death. Say...when timing a re-entry or knowing when to fire a thruster.

So a somewhat difficult to activate – or to say it another way – an only deliberately activating chronograph would have been a feature, not a bug when seen through NASA's eyes. In fact, it had to be one of the features they had a pretty strict notion upfront about how they needed it to perform and actuate, and one which ruled-out other, more easily activated chronographs immediately.

@Archer no idea what metric they would have used, but I'm sure the data is out there. My dad was a young engineer working for NASA around this time period, and from what I know just anecdotely ...they were not want to document things. The force per sq. inch or coefficients of friction involved in pusher activation were almost certainly known as part of the original Speedmaster testing and selection. Maybe even part of their preflight.

 

I would echo what others have mentioned, which is that the 321's push action tend to be softer and smoother compared to the 861. By that I don't mean that it's a nicer feel; just different. I enjoyed the pusher feel of the V72 in my Heuer Autavia 2446 more..it had more heft and weight. But the one that left the greatest impression on me was actually the Longines 13zn movement..it had the kick of the V72, but somehow, with more elegance..