Love the smaller proportions of both. Anyone else going this route? Any details as to why or why not?

 

Since replies are lacking, I'll mention that I have an original Ed and a recently acquired FOIS which I have worn for a couple of weeks solid. Being as I am someone who usually swaps watches every couple of days this should give you some indication of how impressed I am with the FOIS. I have taken the precaution of moving it onto a depolyant strap though since a tang buckle strap is liable to lead to a smashed crystal or dented watch if you are clumsy like me.

Not sure if I see the proportions as smaller to be honest, they wear pretty much the same as the Pro since the dial and bezel size is the same. My pairing are sufficiently different to make them justifiable to me, one is brand new under warranty with a sapphire crystal, the other 55 years old, full of character but maybe a little too fragile and frankly valuable to consider painting the fence or washing the car when wearing. But then I wouldn't do that in the FOIS either!

The new 321 Ed White (or G Cernan or whatever) might not be sufficiently different to the FOIS to make the same argument, its like a FOIS but ~20% better, at 300% of of the price. Keeping both in that case might be a harder argument to make maybe.

 

I thought you would like the G Cernan comment @cvalue13 !

 

I will meekly note that a person with an original Ed White may be value-adjusting that 20% a little differently than does a person without an original Ed White.

For that matter, how many % points better than the FOIS is your original Ed White?

I feel like your goading me into needing a FOIS, you monster

EDIT for comment ships in night: yes, I noticed the Cernan reference! Though I thoroughly admit to being on the losing team there, so I appreciate the kind pity.

 

Well the whole % thing is utterly subjective of course and near to meaningless. I was of course making up my statistics on the spot as in fact 67.4% are. But I digress. My point, ignoring the questionable maths was that the 2 modern watches share more than a modern and vintage piece, the crystal and lume materials being 2 examples, so my comparison is limited in its validity. I wasn't making a comment about old vs new per se.

 

Of course, and I was absolutely willing to entertain such fanciful musings.

As you know, I have the Cernan 321B (see what I did there?) and so can't help but feel a little irrationally butt-hurt by seeing anyone remotely insinuate I have anything other than perfect financial judgment. (Unless of course you're my wife, mother, aunt, friend group, etc. - in which case enough already.)

That said, I did also genuinely like your thought experiment in that it brought to mind that helpful comparison to sort out why, if ever, the Cernan 321B would be chosen over a FOIS.

And I think the answer will inevitably have something to do and not entirely dissimilar from the reasons an original Ed White would also be chosen over a FOIS.

Sure, the vintage head in me says "but history and character and..." yadda yadda; meanwhile, the pragmatist in me says "but I want to wear it with reckless abandon, and I want to pass it to my son with only my scratches on it..." yadda yadda. Which comparing those two rationales just goes to show these are primarily emotional decisions, and hardly rational financial judgment in either direction.

After all, I would still never trade you my Cernan 321B for your original Ed White, and neither of us would trade for a FOIS + market cash, right?

 

I'm #1 on the list for an Ed White (aka "Cernan 321B") at my favorite AD, which means I might be dealing with a Daytona-esque waiting period. I've never been a big fan of the FOIS. To me, the Ed White is a different beast. In the meantime, I am buying a 2021 sapphire sandwich. So much great stuff has happened with the Speedmaster in the recent past.

 

I wasn't a huge FOIS fan until I actually had one on my wrist, there were several things that didn't quite hit the spot in theory but I find I can easily overlook them in person. I previously owned the Trilogy Speedy and while I liked that, didn't wear it all that much (possibly again for value reasons, its 50% more than the FOIS) and that got moved on. I actually think that I prefer the FOIS to that now I have had both in hand, mainly because I am less worried about banging it up. I have also moved on a 145.012-68 and 3570 Speedy amongst many others so you could say I am pretty fickle!

Oh if money were no object I would certainly take the AFKANEW (Artist formerly known as New Ed White) over the FOIS, the bracelet is a big plus, the dial is nicer and I actually like the tinted lume. And regardless of how much is just marketing bullshit, the 321 just is a nicer thing to have than an 1861, its a fact. A display back would be nice too so I do get it. I can't see my self buying the AFKANEW because financially I can't justify it, particularly while having an original, but that doesn't mean I don't want one!

 

Very useful -- thanks.

I am on "the list" for the AFKANEW, but have no expectation that it will arrive anytime soon, and in the meantime I too wear and love my FOIS. And as a one-time Trilogy owner I agree with your preference for the FOIS, which is just flat-out more beautiful, IMO, while retaining the usual Speedy functionality. It's one of those watches with some (IMO, minor) flaws but a charm that outweighs those comfortably,. a true sum-greater-than-the-parts, piece.

If I ever get the (N)EW 321 I expect I'll love it. But I can't see myself ever not wearing the FOIS, despite the similarities to the 321, and not quite measuring up to it. It's an odd. great watch.

 

I think for the pragmatist the FOIS on a flat link gets most of “the look” for a fraction of the price.

But the 321 is for the romantic that values the hand made aspects of the watch being done the way that watchmaking has been done for centuries. By one watchmaker. There’s an emotional connection with that, especially when viewing the highly decorated movement that you don’t get with a piece made in modern industrialized methods. There’s also the connection to the watches that NASA actually tested, having the movement that was actually worn to the moon, and the remade reference that marked both the start and the completion of mankind’s greatest adventure in history. The FOIS gets some of that but not all of it. Then again, maybe I’m just a sucker and I was sold LOL

The 321 always struck me in the way a singer 911 does. Is there any wonder that a vintage car re-made and reimagined with modern touches and with modern performance is selling for nearly 1 million USD? You can actually buy a real 73 carrera RS for the same price and you get something altogether different yet equally justified in its value on the market.

incidentally, I also own an air cooled 911SC dressed up with some aftermarket bits which is sort of analogous to the FOIS on a flat link. Plenty of people ask me if it’s a singer, or a limited porsche from the past, and I always say no, but I think I got 80% of the experience for 10% of the price.

but you know what? If money was no object I’d have the singer.

 

I don't think the new 321 is the Singer of 911s. The new 321 doesn't function better than an old 321, functionally they're the same movement. It's more durable and showy, sure. To translate the 911 analogy, it'd be like a remake of the '73 Carrera RS, but with the same engine, same styling, but made with carbon fiber panels and some engine dress-up. At the same price of the real thing. I'd rather just get the real thing if you're paying nearly the same price, that's just me.

One of the biggest visual difference is the lug on the FOIS that have those beveled edges, but I actually like that more than the unbeveled lugs. If I were willing to spend on the Ed White, I'd want a 145.012, or some kind of re-issue of that watch (it's bound to happen eventually)

 

I think you meant to say you’d rather have both, no?

Remembering we’re here in the world of comparing Speedmaster “differences,” I’d view these as more dissimilar than all that:



A different dial, chapter ring, lume, logo, dial font, handset, crystal, bezel, bezel font, bezel font color, crown, case finish, case size and ... yes, lug bevels

And that’s before turning the watch around.

Relative to the world of Speedmaster “differences,” there’s hardly a shared feature past “also a Speedmaster.”

Here are two Speedmasters that are far more similar yet plenty of Speedmaster fans can justify having both (if not multiple copies of either, based on even more minute differences):

 

Note I said "one of the biggest visual differences," not that it's the only difference. I guess in our crazy Speedmaster world some would consider the 321 bezel font being white vs aluminum to be a big visual difference, I wouldn't have noticed unless someone pointed it out. On the other end of the spectrum, I excitedly showed my wife pictures of the 3861 sapphire Speedy, her response was "why do you keep showing me pictures of the same watch you're wearing"

 

That's great my wife also doesn't care about watches at all but since I am telling and showing her everything I learn about Speedmasters she knows about stuff like long SR, dots over or next to 90 and so on no matter if she cares. When yesterday my hesalite sandwich Speedmaster arrived she looked at it and said "oh but it doesn't have a step dial?"

 

Everybody has his own perception of things.
But to me the lug facets is the very last visual difference i would notice, that these two watchas have.

Edit: btw. there is a huge visual difference when comparing (in real life) the ceramic bezel with white enamel numerals/text to an anodized aluminium bezel with silver colour numerals/text.

 

I am surprised you don’t see more people doing and Ed White mod to the FOIS.

The 2000s broad arrow dial and and Ed white hand set and you’ve basically got the exact look of and original

 

The "Replica' dial as it is also known has very white SL lume with no step so isn't a perfect match. Then there is the matter of the FOIS lugs which were never seen on any EW, unless it had been attacked viciously with a polishing wheel by Stevie Wonder. Then you have the crystal to contend with. Nice but not the exact Ed White look by any stretch.

 

I know it would be outrageous but im considering swapping the EW bezel for aluminum, the white on black ceramic contrast distracts visually from the dial

 

I must admit that's one of the reasons why I bought one of the very last. But now I love alpha hands, a good dressy touch. I'm in love with its vintage look, and aftermarket bracelets help magnifie it.
Would I prefer a 321? Of course, but 14k is just too much.

 

An interesting prerogative!

I find the ceramic/white bezel to instead make the watch and dial in particular “pop,” and only to that extent add any utility to an otherwise (to me) useless Tachy bezel.

I’d also wonder if you’ve considered that the 321B has a highly polished case, and so the aluminum bezel will add further (if minor) “silver”/shiny surface and - to my eye - could be a straw on the camel’s back.

But I’d look forward to seeing, including whether as a practical matter if the aluminum bezel could replace the ceramic, in terms of fit?