The problem with these kinds of articles is that they are basically fluff, and are usually written by people who don't have much real watchmaking knowledge or experience.

So if I look at the claims he makes comparing the 321 column wheel design to the 1861/1861 cam design:

Cost effective - all I can say with this is that current price for a new column wheel for a 321 is $88. The two pieces of the cam for the 861/1861 are $52, so using that as a guide, there is a massive $36 premium for that column wheel!

Easier to produce - in the past, yes a column wheel would have been an expensive part to machine, but now with CNC it is really not a big deal.

Easier to assemble - when I install the column wheel I place it on the bridge and insert a screw, then tighten the screw. For a cam I place the lower half on the post, then the upper half on the post, and the insert and tighten a screw. The cam requires an extra step since it has two parts.

Easier to service - the only thing left is lubrication, and yes the column wheel may take a whole 15 seconds more to apply lube to than a cam does, but in the end the column wheel itself, and the parts needed to actuate it, are no more complicated to assemble than the cam system is.
Let's expand on the differences a bit...

Column wheels break - this is from a 321:


I can't show you a photo of a broken cam, because I've never seen a cam break...

A claim often heard is that column wheels have a "nicer" or less firm pusher feel, and that is certainly true. However for the purposes of timing an event, the column wheel is "mushy" and in my view, less precise in terms of when the chronograph actually starts and stops. The cam has a much crisper snap to it that happens very quickly.

The preference for a column wheel is mostly from either a purely aesthetic point of view, or because people read on blogs and forums that it is "traditional" and somehow better. In reality, I don't think it's any better at doing to job than a cam is - they are both just very simple on/off switches.

Cheers, Al

 

Al was that broken column wheel reparable (or are spares available?), or if a 321 column wheel breaks, is the watch out of luck?

 

Not repairable, but as I noted a new one is $88 from Omega.

 

Al, I think I've heard you say that there are different types of column wheels for 32x movements. If I got that right, does the currently available one fit a subset of the 321s? And if so, any idea which iterations?

Wait. That was balance completes. But while we are talking about balance complete, is there a way to identify which interation of 321 a particular balance is for?

(sidebar: even from a simple description like the one on Wikipedia, the balance sorta blows my mind.)

 

Off the top of my head, I can’t recall there being anything that would be obvious looking at the balance itself, but of course the balance change coincides with the change in the regulator pointer shape.

Of course if you have one in the package, the part number will have a “.1” after it for the later design.

 

Has anyone seen any real / live pic of this watch?

 

No, I believe the official pictures from Omega is the only released yet.

 

Hi Al, apologies if you mentioned this elsewhere. Are 321 parts for the current 321 movement all numbered the same as the original parts, with the exception of a ".1" suffix at the end of them? (Thus indicating gold plating, vs. copper plating?)

Additionally, are there any "formal" version designations in Omega's system between this and any prior versions of the calibre Ω321? i.e., is the original calibre 321 used in the 1957-1968 Speedmaster designated as a "321" and the upcoming/current production calibre 321 designated as a "321B"? Furthermore is there any other differentiation by Omega between the three different variants of the original 321 movement shown in Moonwatch Only (changes to the clutch bridge and regulator adjustment index)? Or are these minutiae that only us here in OF notice, while Omega only differentiates between original (57-68) production run, and 2019-onward?

 

I've managed to go through the 20 or so pages of this thread and compared your thoughts with my own...

Speaking only for myself; when the 321 made its debut roughly one year ago, I wanted to see the 321 placed in a SS case... (and) I wanted to "SEE" it... literally . Enter the 321 Ed White - Omega has essentially delivered what I asked for (and I suspect, many others as well).

I never took the time to consider how it should be packaged - as a Speedmaster Pro or a Speedmaster, if it absolutely had to have a DON or applied logo, etc. No, I just asked to "see" a 321 in SS... .

Looking back, maybe I should have made a very detailed list for Omega (lol ). All-in-all, I think they put together a pretty nice package for us (or me...). Granted, the decision to go with sapphire was baffling... and I would have preferred white lume although this was not much of a surprise given the overall trend with tributes / re-creations.

Aaand then there's the price. Who wouldn't have like to see it much lower. But, in the words of The Irishmen's Russel Bufalino, "...it is what it is."

So yeah... I'm in for one

I'm delighted that it comes with a display back. While I understand quite a few members feel that a correct "tribute" to the Ed White reference should follow through with the appropriate inscribed solid caseback, the real star of this show is the movement!
If Omega were to release an Ed White tribute that was 1-1 but had an 1861 movement, I suppose the same group would lament it not having a 321. At least, until they noted the price tag...

I sincerely doubt Omega has / had any intentions of mass-producing the 321. That job belongs to the 3861. My guess is that the 321 will make an appearance whenever warranted and at most, one reference per year. As with any "limited" release, there will always be mixed reactions. What was the last reference, if any, that received unanimous approval from the community...? I doubt even the last Snoopy managed that...

I'm convinced the Apollo XIII will be powered by the 3861. With a solid caseback. As I noted above, I don't believe Omega intends to release the 321 in that many references.

So... I'm one of those lemmings. I've been one ever since Panerai released their first reference with "aged" patina back in ...2013? My argument is two-fold. First off, I don't need my watched pre-aged for me, thank you very much. Not even if said watch is a throwback to the Radium / Tritium era. Having said that, I did note your thread on tritium's actual color. Ok, I'll accept your claim. Which brings me to my second argument... one of pure aesthetics and the speedmaster is the perfect candidate for the discussion. The Speedmaster's black, white and steel. Monochromatic bliss (or grayscale, if you prefer). Why go mess that up with color, one that ranges from slightly off-white to near-brown just to represent tritium (aged or otherwise). Tropical dials - I don't really need that either. If you twist my arm, I'll take faded dials / bezels but if the dial was originally black, then it should be faded again, using grayscale. But back on topic... I did add the 2014 SM300MC "tribute" to my collection, despite the aged lume and I will make the exception once again... . This time at least I can use your "original tritium color" to justify it...

I'm in agreement with any & everybody that raised an eyebrow over the price & Omega's pricing strategy. My only theory (aside from Omega now playing "that" game) is Omega already did the math of the number of 321s to be produced annually vs. the initial cost to set up the tooling and whatnot. FWIW, Fred Mandelbaum has suggested something to this extent as well on the #SpeedyTuesday FB Group.

I agree. I'm not al all pleased with this concept - particularly if there is no date in sight. I certainly want to be the one earning the interest in the interim... !

Well that settles it; the new 321 movement is a pure emotional investment, no more, no less. Al, thanks for your input and candor - invaluable!

 

Greetings

You give me the whole new understanding about the column wheel and the cam. I never knew that before until you point it out.

Still, I never knew that column wheel can be broken in that way. I do hope that the 321 is still a movement that can be used and wear on daily basis.

PS. The 39.7 mm. stainless steel case of this new Speedmaster is also caught my interest.

Very Best Regard

 

So even though you accept my claim (thanks!) you didn't get the point I made Which is, the color of the lume on the new Ed White, is not made to look aged (its not faux), but it was made to look new in 1967 (for example). Here are the Ed White pics from Ultraman TV show from that era (thanks again to @Ree for bringing them up)...

So, you DON'T want a 100% historically-accurate-in-all-details-even-to-the-color-of-new-tritium-in-196X remake, but you want some modern Bamford-take

In anycase...it sounds like you ordered one...many heartfelt congrats!

 

I'll stick with my FOIS

 

I prefer to deliberate this in your dedicated thread (which as you know, I did) but just to add here that...
...even white SuperLuminova is not "pure" white ...

 

That is C3, which is green, not white.

 

So I had a chance to look for this today...



This shows the "old" style balance and regulator, along with the "new" style balance and regulator. Looks like you can tell the balance styles apart by the configuration of the screws on the rim, and of course the regulator is obvious. Note that the ".1" is not on all parts, just the parts that are related to the changes made at that time.

If I look up the Cal. 321 movement on the Omega Extranet, there are 3 listed. One is 6000321, the next is 6000321A, and the one recently added to this list is 6000321B (so I am assuming this is the "new" 321 movement because it was definitely not there before). Only one of these listings can be expanded to show all the parts, and that's the one that is just 6000321 - the other two have no parts shown at this time.

Normally if I look up the PIC number of a watch on the Omega Extranet, it lists all the case parts, straps or bracelets, and the movement. But if I do that for any of the new 321 releases, the movement details are currently omitted. So for example when I put 31130403001001 in and search, I can see the case listed, the dial, the hands, the bracelet, but no movement details are listed.

There is currently no 321 technical guide of any kind available on the Omega Extranet, so I am using old scanned copies that I got off the web somewhere years ago.

So there is very little available on the movement itself in terms of official documentation, even though there are reports that platinum versions are starting to be delivered. At the start of this there was a lot of speculation that this would open up spare parts again for the 321, I see no evidence of that happening yet. In contrast the new 3861 there are technical guides available, and all parts are shown and available for purchase, and have been since July of last year...

 

You learn something new every day... Was that C3 or C5...



Do you have a guess what Omega used for this reference (321 E.W.)... ? Is it 100% SuperLuminova base?


What about their SM300MC... ?

 

Just to expand a bit on the "complexity" discussion with cam and column wheel movements, I have two videos to illustrate the differences. In this first video I took a couple of years ago, I have all the parts mounted to this 321 in order for the column wheel switching to work:

So looking at the parts we have the following:

1 - Pillar wheel (column wheel)
2 - Pillar wheel screw
3 - Operating lever
4 - Operating lever screw
5 - Operating lever hook
6 - Pillar wheel jumper (spring)
7 - Pillar wheel jumper screw
8 - Operating lever spring
9 - Two screw for the operating lever spring

Here is a similar video showing an 1861, again with the minimum parts installed to allow the cam system to function the same as the column wheel does in the video above:

Lets look at the parts required here:

1 - Lower cam
2 - Upper cam
3 - Screw for cam
4 - Cam jumper (spring)
5 - Operating lever
6 - Two operating lever screws
7 - Connecting lever
8 - Operating lever spring
9 - Operating lever yoke
10 - Screw for operating lever yoke

So just on a pure parts count basis, there are actually more parts in this system for the 1861 (11) than there are for the 321 (10). And this doesn't include the screw that holds the cam jumper (spring) in place, because another spring for the hammer goes on top of that before you install the screw, so technically, it's 12 parts for the cam system.

Just some perspective on how these two systems really compare to each other. People often say that Omega changed from the cam to the column wheel to cut costs, but having serviced a lot of each and seen the wear/damage that happens on the column wheel 321's, I would argue they made these changes as much for reliability as for cost savings.

Cheers, Al

 

Excellent videos and explanations