Community Stories

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

ErichPryde
Posts
2,878
Likes
5,361
SpeedyPhill SpeedyPhill
861 movement
These 861 are known to have run as daily beater for 22 years without a service 🧐

To be fair to co-axial movements, I suspect they may also be capable of running that long without service, but our sample of >20 year co-axials is not very big- yet. IIRC, the first releases were in a Deville or Constellation in 1999 or 2000? Wasn't the first seamaster coax post 2005?
 
Alex_TA
Posts
536
Likes
762
Davidt 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.
Deja vu all over again.
 
SpeedyPhill
Posts
6,303
Likes
11,664
Well we have to prepare ourselves:
2026 =
50 years co-axial Seth Atwood watch by George Daniels
100 years George Daniels
😁
 
GrouchoM
Posts
173
Likes
129
SpeedyPhill SpeedyPhill
861 movement
These 861 are known to have run as daily beater for 22 years without a service 🧐
How accurately did they run for 22 years without servicing?
 
Archer
Posts
27,804
Likes
70,619
chiefenergy chiefenergy
Its design avoided the need to add oil to the escapement because the mechanism operated with very low friction.
Except that it is oiled. The 2- level co-axial escapement had 30 separate oiling points on the intermediate escape wheel and co-axial wheel that require oil. The 3 level co-axial escapement drops that to 10 points.

Roger Smith has admitted that both he and George Daniels always added oil to it, so the idea that it never needed oil is a myth.
 
Gael.Bx
Posts
155
Likes
133
Kmmdad57 Kmmdad57
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.
not in copper but with rose gold plating, watch calibers are plated with gold or rhodium (from 1980) the most often...
 
G
Posts
40
Likes
54
The 3861 keeps better time - plain and simple. My 3861s seems to run around +1 daily whereas my 321 is more like +10. So in my mind, the 3861 is the better movement - isn’t accuracy what it is true measure? I love my 321 for the beauty of the movement and the awesome nostalgia. But if I had to have only one watch, I’d go with a 3861.
 
MCC
Posts
599
Likes
546
I bought a Railmaster with a Co-axial movement about 16 years ago precisely because it was a Co-axial. I read about George Daniels work on these and wanted one. I love the watch but has completely stopped and needed fixing/servicing 3 times in that period. Ironically the only watch I have that has done this. Not everyone will service a coaxial movement so you need to be careful who you send it to.STS have become my default.

I also remember seeing an interview with Roger Smith where he claimed that he had improved and fixed the problems of Daniels original design. Is the case of the apprentice becoming the master I wonder?

In any event I also tend to regard the coaxial movement as largely an interesting idea that has become great marketing.
 
Archer
Posts
27,804
Likes
70,619
G gdhoosier
The 3861 keeps better time - plain and simple. My 3861s seems to run around +1 daily whereas my 321 is more like +10. So in my mind, the 3861 is the better movement - isn’t accuracy what it is true measure?
If so, you should collect quartz watches - even a cheap one is going to be more accurate than the vast majority of mechanical watches.
 
STANDY
Posts
16,747
Likes
47,395
Plain and simple the 321 should not be anymore $$s than the 3861… but it is.

If 321 vintage were pulling $20k on eBay why couldn’t Omega have a slice…so they did the marketing and pulled the nostalgia heart strings.

IMG_0530.jpeg
Can’t beat a 1861 Moonwatch (for price and reliability)

But the newer 3861 would have to technically be the better movement once all is said and done…
Edited:
 
Mute
Posts
123
Likes
132
The METAS cert of the 3861 is certainly a technological achievement though seems kind of superfluous on a manual wind watch.
 
Kmmdad57
Posts
94
Likes
35
N njlam
There is a new 321?

Do you mean the current Ed White?
Yes. I'm trying to see what the differences are between the old 321 and the new, (so far it seems the finishing and power reserve time is different) and then compare that to the 3861technically. What I am hearing is, the 3861 is a more technically advanced movement compared to both 321's. I think that seems to be a fair statement with the "being true to the history" is the 321's claim to fame.
 
Kmmdad57
Posts
94
Likes
35
Archer Archer
If so, you should collect quartz watches - even a cheap one is going to be more accurate than the vast majority of mechanical watches.
We, we can't go down that rabbit hole, because an Apple watch or smart phone is even better than quartz. That's apples and oranges stuff. We stay with mechanical watch because of the value retention. However, advancements in mechanical movements don't reduce a watches desirability, even though the vintage movements are what watch lovers want.
 
YY77
Posts
5,158
Likes
23,612
Co
Kmmdad57 Kmmdad57
We stay with mechanical watch because of the value retention
Could you elaborate?
 
ErichPryde
Posts
2,878
Likes
5,361
Kmmdad57 Kmmdad57
We, we can't go down that rabbit hole, because an Apple watch or smart phone is even better than quartz.
In terms of just time keeping, I'm not sure that's accurate. There are plenty of solar-powered quartz watches that do a radio time check and self-update. They are as accurate as an apple watch and never really need to be charged. Capacitors last around a decade as long as they get sunlight.

I'd bet that the quartz movements in something like a citizen is more accurate without radio/internet contact than a smart phone, actually.
 
Archer
Posts
27,804
Likes
70,619
Kmmdad57 Kmmdad57
We, we can't go down that rabbit hole,
You choose not to, but if accuracy is the main thing as you've stated, mechanical watches are not where it's at.
 
Kmmdad57
Posts
94
Likes
35
YY77 YY77
Co

Could you elaborate?
mechanical watches, in general, holds their value better than quartz or electronic watches
 
Kmmdad57
Posts
94
Likes
35
ErichPryde ErichPryde
In terms of just time keeping, I'm not sure that's accurate. There are plenty of solar-powered quartz watches that do a radio time check and self-update. They are as accurate as an apple watch and never really need to be charged. Capacitors last around a decade as long as they get sunlight.

I'd bet that the quartz movements in something like a citizen is more accurate without radio/internet contact than a smart phone, actually.
Maybe, but we are getting off track. I was just asking about machanical watches and moonwatches to be specific.
 
ErichPryde
Posts
2,878
Likes
5,361
Kmmdad57 Kmmdad57
Maybe, but we are getting off track. I was just asking about machanical watches and moonwatches to be specific.


I understand. A lot of us, I think, have done considerable thinking about the "value retention" comment you made, which is why this whole accuracy/value conversation is coming up. Some mechanical watches retain value- but it's completely because of brand and model first and the technology after. Longines and Tissot (among others) would like to know where their value retention is, I am sure.

These conversations so often ignore the very real and very significant upkeep costs that mechanical watches have in comparison to your average quartz movement. Being able and willing to pay those upkeep costs when they come up is part of the "prestige" that comes along with this hobby. Do we consider service/upkeep costs to be depreciative?

This is a great hobby, I write this comment as I very happily sport my summer blue seamaster heritage. But I have no illusion that in terms of initial cost + current depreciation + future upkeep costs, I would have been better off if "monetary value" was really my prime focus, to just put the cash into $SPY. But, sometimes a luxury can be an investment in oneself, and that can be just as important.
 
14 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

stiofan

Why is it so bad to put a "better" movement in an old watch?

stiofan Open Discussion
cicindela
cicindela
Posts
86
Views
7K