A Closer Look at a 105.012-63: Provenance, Originality, and Quality

Posts
360
Likes
345
My long history in an Omega workshop probably influences my thinking and is the reason why I tend not to intervene in discussions anymore.
I wonder however, since a watch is born as a tool for measuring time, why no consideration is ever made about the state of the movement.
The condition of the movement cannot be determined visually, and a large number of factors affect its condition and its residual ability to measure time correctly.
In particular, it is well known that in these calibers there is a tendency of ovalization of the plate holes to occur, as well as some play on part of the gear train, not to mention the isochronism hairspring, which at the time was different from example to example to a much larger extent from what happens nowadays.
Unfortunately, collectors tend to think that these problems can be easily resolved during an overhaul, which is not true. It would therefore be nice if, out of respect for us old-school watchmakers, a few words were said regarding the running characteristics of the specimens examined.
I remain optimistic and hope that one day this will happen.
Great response. One should always factor a service when pricing (buying) a timepiece.
 
Posts
29,668
Likes
76,825
Good point to make about the movement, it should not all be about the cosmetics because if the watch does not work properly, what is the use ?

Regarding amplitude, i think for a cal 861 the minimum Omega spec is 180 degrees dial up if i remember correctly, what is the number for a cal 321 ?
The minimum amplitude measurement is irrespective of position. This means that no matter what position it is tested in, the amplitude should be above the minimum. So it would have to be 180 in vertical positions also.

180 is the number for the 321's...
 
Posts
1,533
Likes
3,182
180 is the number for the 321's...
Thank you for clearifying my foggy memory Archer 👍.
 
Posts
7,175
Likes
23,246
I’ve been marinating on this, thought I understood, and realized I’m confused about the following:
The condition of the movement cannot be determined visually, and a large number of factors affect its condition and its residual ability to measure time correctly

I have read numerous times that the timegrapher results are not enough information to determine whether a movement needs a service, and visual inspection, like observing to oil on the jewels, is imperative. But, are we talking about highly magnified inspection, rather than that of the naked eye?

In a good sample, the drop in the amplitude from horizontal to vertical positions can be expected to be about 50/55°, as it is generally the case for the new caliber 321b
The minimum amplitude measurement is irrespective of position. This means that no matter what position it is tested in, the amplitude should be above the minimum. So it would have to be 180 in vertical positions also.

180 is the number for the 321's...

So, if a watch comes in with an amplitude this low, how does one know it’s acceptable, rather than indicative of another issue that needs addressing?
 
Posts
460
Likes
385
Thanks for posting. It is so educational seeing the condition report of the watch spelled out like this.
 
Posts
29,668
Likes
76,825
So, if a watch comes in with an amplitude this low, how does one know it’s acceptable, rather than indicative of another issue that needs addressing?

If a watch has a very severe drop in amplitude from horizontal to vertical, or is below the minimum amplitude 24 hours after full wind, that doesn't tell you what the cause of that is.

This is only part of diagnosing a watch - as I've said before amplitude can give you some information, but not always all the information you need. In my view it needs to be combined with a thorough visual inspection of the movement, to see if oils are dry, or if there are any other signs of problems, such as products of wear collecting in a jewel. I've posted some examples of the thigns I look for here:


Problems like the hole in the main bridge being worn oval (very common on both 321's and 861/1861 versions) you are only going to see that once some level of disassembly has been completed. So in that sense, there's always going to be a gamble to some degree, because you have no idea what you are really getting until it's all taken apart and inspected.

Here's an example - not a chronograph, but I received this for service recently:



Looks good, no obvious signs of water intrusion, and the movement looks very clean:



However, when I disassembled it, cleaned the parts, and then inspected them, I found rust and wear:



I'm replacing nearly every wheel in the watch, plus the complete barrel, pallet fork, etc. Sometimes you just don't know until you get this deep into the service.
 
Posts
7,175
Likes
23,246
If a watch has a very severe drop in amplitude from horizontal to vertical, or is below the minimum amplitude 24 hours after full wind, that doesn't tell you what the cause of that is.

This is only part of diagnosing a watch - as I've said before amplitude can give you some information, but not always all the information you need. In my view it needs to be combined with a thorough visual inspection of the movement, to see if oils are dry, or if there are any other signs of problems, such as products of wear collecting in a jewel. I've posted some examples of the thigns I look for here:


Problems like the hole in the main bridge being worn oval (very common on both 321's and 861/1861 versions) you are only going to see that once some level of disassembly has been completed. So in that sense, there's always going to be a gamble to some degree, because you have no idea what you are really getting until it's all taken apart and inspected.

Here's an example - not a chronograph, but I received this for service recently:



Looks good, no obvious signs of water intrusion, and the movement looks very clean:



However, when I disassembled it, cleaned the parts, and then inspected them, I found rust and wear:



I'm replacing nearly every wheel in the watch, plus the complete barrel, pallet fork, etc. Sometimes you just don't know until you get this deep into the service.

An interesting conundrum for the hobbyist: you purchase a watch that appears in good condition (even the movement), and it runs well, but the service history is unknown. Do you wait until a timekeeping or other issue presents itself, or proactively seek a full service?

A couple of old-time watchmakers have told me: if it’s a manual wind, wait until there’s an issue. If it’s an automatic, and you’re going to wear it, get it serviced. How wise this is, I’m not clear about.
 
Posts
29,668
Likes
76,825
A couple of old-time watchmakers have told me: if it’s a manual wind, wait until there’s an issue. If it’s an automatic, and you’re going to wear it, get it serviced. How wise this is, I’m not clear about.
I think I know where they were going with it, because autos that are left unserviced for a long period of time can have wear to the bridges and plates due to the rotor scraping, and the parts in an auto are very hard working. How hard they work really isn't directly related to how much the watch ticks, but how hard the watch is worn and how much the rotor spins. Often autos wind the mainspring excessively, so if you are an active person, the rotor is going to be winding and winding, even if the watch mainspring is already fully wound.

Personally, I don't think that is a good criteria, despite that reasonably sound logic.

I would look at the availability of spare parts, both how easy they are to find, and how expensive they are. If parts are cheap and plentiful, like with many mass produced modern watches, then there's little chance of real harm or expense by letting the watch run. If parts are rare and expensive, then I would say preserving whatever good parts might be inside the watch is a larger priority.
 
Posts
7,175
Likes
23,246
While we are on the topic of 321’s, this quote referenced by an Omega watchmaker from the thread below. Wonder if others go along with the opinion on the movement quality:

“The 321 however…man. That thing’s robust. It’s like Toyotas forerunner motor, so incredibly overbuilt and made with a lot of integrity, I smile every time one comes across my desk. Very collectible too.“

 
Posts
6,187
Likes
21,181
I would look at the availability of spare parts, both how easy they are to find, and how expensive they are. If parts are cheap and plentiful, like with many mass produced modern watches, then there's little chance of real harm or expense by letting the watch run. If parts are rare and expensive, then I would say preserving whatever good parts might be inside the watch is a larger priority.

This is a principle I can understand and apply. Well said.

Like M'Bob, I've struggled with what seems to be conflicting advice, to let it run until you experience a problem. But how to determine when that is, as a watch will run a long time while it wears itself to pieces. Since there's no way to know if the oils are dry without taking it apart, shouldn't we go ahead and service it based on the life expectancy of the oil/lube. But I've had many experienced watch collectors and dealers tell me to let it run until I notice a timing issue. Nobody would say that about a car or expensive machine. But it makes sense to do that if, like you say, parts are readily available, and/or I am not concerned about replacing movement components. Thanks for the insight.
 
Posts
443
Likes
425
I picked up a 105.012 last year and I've been impressed by how accurate the 321 has been. I don't know the service history and I've never had it serviced
 
Posts
153
Likes
154
Thanks for the very educational post. Also thanks a lot for the amazing photos and intuition as well, Archer.