the grey dial is really that bad looking. 🙁
I appear to be the only one that is concerned about this but to tie it up....It looks like “manking” strikes again.
From my contact at Omega:
“You were 100% corrrect on the time of Neil's step on the moon. I sent that to the powers to be and ask them to correct what they had. You would think they would pass that through me so I could verify if it was correct or not.
Thanks again for letting me know.”
Everyone has their opinion, I think the textured grey dial and black outer ring looked particularly rich and attractive, complimented by the gold elements and bezel. Some think it is garish, or too dressy, and some just don't like gold. Omega could never design a watch that would satisfy all customers, the world just doesn't work that way whether it is a man made or natural object. Some like, some don't.
Even if Omega made an exact replica of the moon era Speedmaster down to dial, case, hands, bracelet, box and 321 movement and charged $9,650 there would still be people carping about it, how it is too expensive or that Omega should have done something different. You can't satisfy everyone.
The time Omega put on it is when Armstrong started surface examination (02:56:48 GMT):
Yes, I know that. 02:56:48 GMT was established and discussed on the previous page. Sorry but my layman's interpretation of the plaque would indicate they are saying the First Step on the Moon occurred at 02:56:48 GMT. Is doesn't read Armstrong began surface examination at 02:56:48 GMT.
That said, my contact has told me that the intent is the time of the first step and that indeed the time is incorrect.
You said: "Lastly packaging, at this moment I think I'm out there alone on this but I think the use of 02:59:48 GMT as the time the first step on the Moon occurred is incorrect"
I wasn't sure about the "59" so I posted the pic of the Omega box to show it's 56 on that. It was a typographical error on your part. I was trying to be polite about it. But yes, the time NASA states is the time on the moon is a few seconds earlier than on the box.
This. 105.012s and 145.012s are still readily available, so a replica would not have made much sense. It would've been a safe option, but with not particularly much added value to the Speedmaster line. And any new interpretation is going to be polarizing - just look at Snoopy or ST2... The way I see it, there are so many LEs to choose from - so if I don't like one, I just wait and see whatever else comes our way.
True, but then the box time would really be off. Buzz made that call at 20:17:40 GMT on 20 July 1969.
I know, but is Omega celebrating the first walk on the surface by Armstrong, or when the first Omega walked on the surface on Aldrin's wrist? As it is it's muddled.
Judging by the exact time they are citing on the box it would be neither of the above.
I’m not trying to be difficult I’m simply pointing out that if the time they are citing is inferring the first step it is incorrect according to the official time provided by NASA. I’ve been told it is incorrect which means the first step time was Omega’s intent and they made a mistake.
Sorry, it is not muddled. These historic events are documented to the second. If Omega wants to cite a specific event, and the first step is, they should use the corresponding specific time. Simple as that.
For all they got right with this watch how they got this wrong is just surprising to me.
Now that it has been pointed out repeatedly does Omega realize the screw up and change the plaque, or will they just say, 'close enough for marketing purposes?'. I would guess the latter.
Has anyone that bought the Apollo 17 Cernan tribute watch received new boxes correcting the “manking” misspelling yet? I’d go with the latter too.
Hopefully if boxes have not been produced Omega will take the opportunity to correct them. Honestly, who knows. I’m a dick when it comes to these little details. In the end I’ll probably be the only one bothered by it and I’m not even a buyer.
