3861 movement vs the new 321. Which is the better movement from a technical stand point.

[Kmmdad57]

I am trying to find information on which movement is the more superior movement from a technical perspective. The 3861 or the new 321. Also, what is the differences between the original 321 and the new 321. Number of jewels, power reserve, upgraded components, etc. I'm sure, for example, the old 321 doesn't have a co axial escapement.

 

[YY77]

K Kmmdad57

I'm sure, for example, the old 321 doesn't have a co axial escapement.

Neither does the new 321.

Check this review

;https://www.fratellowatches.com/spe...ter-chronometer-vs-speedmaster-ed-white/#gref

Edited: Sun. 8:21am

 

[Dan S]

I think it's pretty clear that the main selling point of the cal 321 is nostalgia.

 

[Davidt]

I’d also argue the the coaxial escapement has little actual benefit and it’s main selling point is hyped marketing rather than real world technical improvements.

 

[Kmmdad57]

YY77

Neither does the new 321.

Check this review

;https://www.fratellowatches.com/spe...ter-chronometer-vs-speedmaster-ed-white/#gref

Oh ok. I didn't know that. However, the old movement as 44 hrs of power reserves, but the new one as 55 hrs. This tells me there is a difference. I also, think the new one is finished in gold where the original was copper.

Edited: Sun. 3:05pm

 

[Kmmdad57]

Dan S

I think it's pretty clear that the main selling point of the cal 321 is nostalgia.

oh ok

 

[Kmmdad57]

Davidt

I’d also argue the the coaxial escapement has little actual benefit and it’s main selling point is hyped marketing rather than real world technical improvements.

I thought the coaxial escapement reduced friction which results in longer time between servicing

 

[Archer]

K Kmmdad57

However, the old movement as 44 hrs of power reserves, but the new one as 55 hrs.

Longer mainspring - Omega only lists a "Barrel complete" for the 321B, but if I had to guess, they are using the 861 mainspring in it. It's longer than the 321 spring is, and given the slower beat rate in the 321 that would get them a longer power reserve.

 

[Dan S]

K Kmmdad57

I thought the coaxial escapement reduced friction which results in longer time between servicing

Theoretically. But Omega doesn't seem to recommend different service intervals, at least not obviously on their website. Maybe there is a difference hidden in the technical info.

Davidt

I’d also argue the the coaxial escapement has little actual benefit and it’s main selling point is hyped marketing rather than real world technical improvements.

I agree that there's not much of a real-world benefit compared to an equivalent non-coaxial. However, compared to a 321, I think there are probably technical improvements that were made over a 60 year period. And obviously the timekeeping of the 321 is generally not going to be the same. Personally, those differences don't matter to me, and there are other reasons to find the Ed White appealing.

 

[502 to right]

My opinions:

1) The advantage of the 321 is nostalgia. Pure and simple. But there's nothing wrong with that.

2) The advantage of the co-axial escapement is marketing. But I'm fine with that as it does the job just fine as compared to a traditional escapement.

 

[7enderbender]

I landed in between. The 321 is the “correct” movement for a “moon watch”. 861/1861 is in my book “correct” for a “NASA watch” (essentially the same anyway).
I bought a 1861 when the 3861 was slated to replace it. I prefer the bracelet and big box. But more importantly the movement. New and “better” isn’t always better. The 861/1861 is time tested and reliable. 3861 remains to be seen. (And had initial issues).

 

[GrouchoM]

3861 users Si14 to achieve METAS certification. The 321 can't achieve that level of accuracy, resilience, and consistency.

 

[njlam]

There is a new 321?

Do you mean the current Ed White?

 

[gbesq]

Davidt

I’d also argue the the coaxial escapement has little actual benefit and it’s main selling point is hyped marketing rather than real world technical improvements.

Well, that's kind of the mechanical watch world generally, isn't it? The technology is essentially obsolete in our digital society.

 

[ErichPryde]

K Kmmdad57

I thought the coaxial escapement reduced friction which results in longer time between servicing

The issue seems to be that the oils will dry out or get used up that essentially the same rate regardless of whether or not the movement is coaxial or not. Supposedly, one of the major advantages to the coaxial escapement is that it maintains a more consistent greater accuracy during its entire running-life-to-service.

The reality is that the coaxial escapement is an absolutely genius marketing ploy by Omega. Hard to say exactly how I feel about that because it is rolex's strategy and one that clearly works.

 

[chiefenergy]

Wikipedia
The co-axial escapement was created by George Daniels in 1974.
During the Quartz Revolution and invention of much more accurate timepieces, George Daniels accepted a commission from American industrialist and watch collector Seth G. Atwood to create a timepiece that would fundamentally improve the performance of mechanical watches. After much experimentation, Daniels had designed a new type of watch escapement by 1974. The mechanism, which was first unveiled in 1976 and known as the Daniels independent double wheeled escapement a further version which was patented in 1980, was later called the co-axial escapement
Its design avoided the need to add oil to the escapement because the mechanism operated with very low friction. Traditional escapements had to use lubricants but this eventually caused problems with accuracy as oil thickened over time. However, the co-axial escapement used radial friction instead of sliding friction, making lubricants theoretically unnecessary. In practice a small amount of lubrication is used on the impulse and locking surfaces of the pallet stones. Daniels' mechanism has since been described by some as the most important development in horology in the past 250 years.

 

[Kmmdad57]

chiefenergy

Wikipedia
The co-axial escapement was created by George Daniels in 1974.
During the Quartz Revolution and invention of much more accurate timepieces, George Daniels accepted a commission from American industrialist and watch collector Seth G. Atwood to create a timepiece that would fundamentally improve the performance of mechanical watches. After much experimentation, Daniels had designed a new type of watch escapement by 1974. The mechanism, which was first unveiled in 1976 and known as the Daniels independent double wheeled escapement a further version which was patented in 1980, was later called the co-axial escapement
Its design avoided the need to add oil to the escapement because the mechanism operated with very low friction. Traditional escapements had to use lubricants but this eventually caused problems with accuracy as oil thickened over time. However, the co-axial escapement used radial friction instead of sliding friction, making lubricants theoretically unnecessary. In practice a small amount of lubrication is used on the impulse and locking surfaces of the pallet stones. Daniels' mechanism has since been described by some as the most important development in horology in the past 250 years.

Wow, I had no idea that this escapement was that important in the watch industry. It is very cool to know that my 3861 has this.

 

[Davidt]

Makes lubricants unnecessary for the escapement (although I believe Omega do actually oil the escapement anyway!) but the rest of the movement still needs oiling, hence no extensions of service intervals.

gbesq

Well, that's kind of the mechanical watch world generally, isn't it? The technology is essentially obsolete in our digital society.

Significant improvements can still be made to obsolete technology.
My point is the coaxial escapement isn’t a real world improvement. It’s a theoretical improvement that required so many modifications to make it work, the actual benefits were lost and now it’s simply a marketing exercise.

 

[gbesq]

Davidt

Makes lubricants unnecessary for the escapement (although I believe Omega do actually oil the escapement anyway!) but the rest of the movement still needs oiling, hence no extensions of service intervals.


Significant improvements can still be made to obsolete technology.

Such that the technology is now improved, but still obsolete? That being said, I understand your point. What I will say, however, is that my experience with the coaxial movements (I’ve owned two Omega co-axial Seamasters) is that they are incredibly accurate. My current Seamaster 300 Heritage gains about 1 second/week. That seems to me to be a “real” benefit of the co-axial design and not just a theoretical advantage.

 

[SpeedyPhill]

861 movement
These 861 are known to have run as daily beater for 22 years without a service 🧐