Question for the Omega movement experts: why hasn't Omega developed an automatic variant of the c1861? It seems feasible considering Rolex and ETA/Valjoux have done it.

(forgive me if they all ready have and please point me in the right direction to learn about it)

 

Why does it have to be an automatic 1861? They already have automatic chronograph movements like the 1164 or 9300/9900. They are arguably better because they have a column wheel and a date.

 

No column wheel on the 1164, but yes your point is valid. Omega already has a number of automatic chronograph movements that they have used.

The 3220 modular chronograph with 2892 base.

Various 7750 based movements like the 1151, 1152, 1155, 1664...

Then the co-axial version of a 7750 based movement with column wheel in the 3330.

Then the F. Piguet based movements so the 3301, 3303, and co-axial 3313.

And the 9300 series.

They already have used so many, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to make another one out of the 1861.

And for the OP, Rolex have used just two...the Zenith based chronograph and it’s replacement in the 4130...

Cheers, Al

 

I suppose the question stems from aesthetics. IMO there is something inherently different between the dial of an 321/861/1861 vs 3330/3220. It seems like Omega was onto something with the 321/861/1861 but instead of advancing it over time (automatic, coaxial, etc) they changed the dial to suit other movements.
Because they have developed their own movements, ETA modified movements, and now have the support structure of ETA, it seems logical that they would innovate on the Lemania movements in an effort to keep up and maintain the dial design.
But take my opinion with a grain of salt - I’m still new to the world of Omega and Omega movements.

 

Thanks for the insights into all the various movements.
I maintain it “might” make sense from an aesthetic and design perspective. I have a personal preference towards the 321/861/1861 dial design. And, boy, I would really like it if it were automatic too. And maybe throw in a coaxial...

 

The 861 is already a thick movement as it is. If they were to add an auto bridge and rotor it would be..... a 9300 !!

 

Then maybe look no further...

If it is the 321/861/1861 dial layout that you like, then be aware that Omega already sold a range of watches in exact the same form factor as the Speedmaster Pro, with exactly the same dial layout using the 33X3 auto chrono movement (as Al alluded to above). These were the Broad Arrow Speedmasters. These are chronometer rated and in the case of the 3313 used a coaxial escapement with column wheel operation. Omega actually rather perversely also used a manual wind version of this movement in an enamel dialled special. The 33X3 got off to a bad start but by the 3313C they finally had something special, by which time the market moved on. Never underestimate Omega's desire to innovate, whatever you can think of, they have probably already tried it.

There are several dial variants in 42mm and 44mm but here is one I happen to own, the 3313C coax auto movement 1957 Speedmaster, case number 178.0022 (showing how closely related it is the to the 145.0022 Pro). It is a truly lovely piece and criminally underestimated by the market. It is IMHO way nicer with much purer breeding than the so called Grail Speedmaster from the 80s which some misguided types rave about. It is exactly the same depth as a sapphire sandwich Pro, and therefore about 3-5mm thinner than the later in house 9300 auto models, which to my mind were a step backwards.

 

ps to the OP, if you like the Pro dial layout so much, how come your Avatar is a Speedmaster Reduced, having second thoughts?

 

Keep up? Who is it that you believe they are behind?

 

If the astronauts could live without automatic movements so can I as well

 

They lived without them because when the Speedmaster was selected by NASA in the early 1960s there was no automatic chronograph on the market. Very soon after the landings they lived quite happily with them, sapphire crystals eventually too.

 

Since we're correcting each other, don't forget about the Valjoux Daytona

 

3313
3330? I forget which exactly but 7750 based.

Same layouts as the 861, both automatic, both chronometer rated, at least one is a column wheel.

But this is basically just showing examples of @Archer s examples.

I also prefer this layout shared with the 861.

 

Not automatic...

 

Fantastic picture!

 

Thanks! Very helpful info!

 

Themselves. They implemented Daniels’ coaxial escapement into mass produced movements. Why not continual to evolve more movements to accept it?

 

Gotta start somewhere.

 

Very cool, great insights!