- Posts
- 187
- Likes
- 67
Cam vs column wheel.
- Posts
- 29,671
- Likes
- 76,829
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerNow, to be clear, I’m not saying it is, but I’m puzzled how you could argue that the perception of superiority doesn’t exit.
To be clear, I know some feel this way and I explained why in my first post, but what struck me is the sweeping generalization made by our friend Evitzee. Does one collector now speak for all collectors? Do we have any sort of data to back up the assertions made? Has a survey been taken that we can see the results of?
I think it's pretty clear that the 321 has other reasons for being so revered, so I would push back on the idea that the primary reason (or even a major reason) it is valued is because of a column wheel.
- Posts
- 29,671
- Likes
- 76,829
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerComing back to the original question, I think (could be wrong) the reason for the switch was that a cam can be stamped (essentially being a 2D part with a uniform thickness), whereas a column wheel has to be machined.
They are both machined. Even an operation such a fine blanking cannot produce the shape as accurately as it is on the cams for the 861/1861/3861, and those are very simple looking cams compared to say that on a 7750, pictured below:
- Posts
- 922
- Likes
- 493
Duckie
·They are both machined. Even an operation such a fine blanking cannot produce the shape as accurately as it is on the cams for the 861/1861/3861, and those are very simple looking cams compared to say that on a 7750, pictured below:
Good example.
And the 7750 cam is possibly two separate flat pieces which are spot welded together to make the desired shape of the part?
- Posts
- 29,671
- Likes
- 76,829
- Posts
- 7,177
- Likes
- 23,253
M'Bob
·I think it's pretty clear that the 321 has other reasons for being so revered, so I would push back on the idea that the primary reason (or even a major reason) it is valued is because of a column wheel.
Meaning, justifiably revered due to issues intrinsic to the 321 caliber, or unjustifiably so, due to marketing, caliber history, forum hype, etc.?
- Posts
- 29,671
- Likes
- 76,829
- Posts
- 7,177
- Likes
- 23,253
- Posts
- 3,873
- Likes
- 8,367
ErichPryde
··Seamasters ForeverWas a question, not a conclusion…
Well, how about justifiably because of its history as opposed to unjustifiably? I don't think it's unreasonable to say that some people feel it is the single most significant column wheel movement ever for that reason.
- Posts
- 7,177
- Likes
- 23,253
M'Bob
·Well, how about justifiably because of its history as opposed to unjustifiably? I don't think it's unreasonable to say that some people feel it is the single most significant column wheel movement ever for that reason.
Let’s keep two issues regarding the cal. 321 movement separate, although they overlap: the movement from a purely mechanical/functional standpoint; and the perception of the status of the movement secondary to advertising, history, hype, discussion, etc.
My earlier point was that the movement has high esteem amongst an arguably large swath of the watch-collecting community, despite that I can’t back that up via polls or research. From @dsio:
There’s definitely a decent portion of collectors who feel that way given the waiting list on the new 321 Ed White, and Omega is definitely feeding into that by putting the 321 in other highly exclusive models like the platinum meteorite Speedmaster, and the hype over vintage 321 Speedmasters is very real which is why I’ve been telling people the 145.022-68, 145.022-69 and 145.022-69SW are the sweet spot right now for value vintage Moonwatches.
Now comes the question of the movement: the castle wheel has been discussed ad nauseam, but what about the other qualities? Its finish; robustness; aesthetics; ease or difficulty of service; timekeeping?
My takeaway from spending too much time here, is that mechanically, the movement, compared to many of its competitors, has been over-hyped. Thus: it appears that the “press” it has received may supersede and not be on an equal playing field to the reality of how good the movement actually is.
- Posts
- 98
- Likes
- 456
YandB
·I actually prefer the chrono action on the 3861/1863 over the 321. But I do prefer the feel of the 9908 over the 3861/1861.
- Posts
- 29,671
- Likes
- 76,829
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerWas a question, not a conclusion…
Well, as has been pointed out, justifiably wasn't offered as an option, so there's a conclusion already in the question.
My takeaway from spending too much time here, is that mechanically, the movement, compared to many of its competitors, has been over-hyped.
As I've said many times, it's a pretty standard chronograph movement. I would put other vintage chronograph movements well above the 321 - Longines 30CH for example.
But to get back to the crux of this thread, I don't believe it is revered simply because it has a column wheel. If the first watch on the moon used a cam operated chronograph, I think the movement would be just as revered. The column wheel is incidental to the "hype" as you put it.
I actually prefer the chrono action on the 3861/1863 over the 321. But I do prefer the feel of the 9908 over the 3861/1861.
Agreed - the crisp snap of the pushers on cam actuated chronographs is actually better for accurately timing something, IMO.
- Posts
- 7,177
- Likes
- 23,253
- Posts
- 3,388
- Likes
- 8,939
blufinz52
··Hears dead people, not watch rotors.Agreed - the crisp snap of the pushers on cam actuated chronographs is actually better for accurately timing something, IMO.
Curious how the cam actuated chronograph is better for accurately timing something. Is it significantly better when timing something for a short duration? I can't imagine a significant difference when timing something over a large amount of time, say 2-3 hours. I think the Speedmaster used by the Apollo 13 astronaut for the 14 second burn time during re-entry was a column wheel 321, which seemed to work well enough to get them safely back to mother earth.
- Posts
- 7,177
- Likes
- 23,253
M'Bob
·As I've said many times, it's a pretty standard chronograph movement. I would put other vintage chronograph movements well above the 321 - Longines 30CH for example
I think we’ve established that the quality of a chronograph movement, and therefore its desirability, is multi factorial: mechanics, serviceability, parts availability, price, aesthetics, accuracy, durability, what watch it comes in, the list goes on.
Purely from an aesthetic standpoint, the Longines movement looks quite pedestrian compared to the 321, and we can’t discount that collectors often like to know that what’s under the hood looks good, particularly if they use a display back:
Longines:
So, when you use the term, “well above,” you don’t specify what quality of the multiple factors regarding a chronograph you’re referring to, I will assume as a watchmaker, it’s the mechanics, not the other items noted above.
You have said the cal. 321 is a pretty basic chronograph movement. It was certainly good enough compared to other chronograph movements of the day to pass some basic tests by NASA. From my rudimentary perspective, the Longines looks to be a relatively similar castle-wheel movement, so if it is “well above” the 321 in terms of mechanics, that would be an interesting thing to know about.
- Posts
- 29,671
- Likes
- 76,829
- Posts
- 3,388
- Likes
- 8,939
blufinz52
··Hears dead people, not watch rotors.The point at which the cam breaks over to start or stop is much more easily defined than the mushy (what people often call smooth) feel of a column wheel.
I understand that there's a different 'feel' when activating the start/stop action, but not sure how that equates to a better accurate timing. Wouldn't each end up with the same elapsed time?
- Posts
- 29,671
- Likes
- 76,829
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerSo, when you use the term, “well above,” you don’t specify what quality of the multiple factors regarding a chronograph you’re referring to, I will assume as a watchmaker, it’s the mechanics, not the other items noted above.
Yes.
You have said the cal. 321 is a pretty basic chronograph movement. It was certainly good enough compared to other chronograph movements of the day to pass some basic tests by NASA.
I've never said it didn't pass or wasn't capable.
Purely from an aesthetic standpoint, the Longines movement looks quite pedestrian compared to the 321, and we can’t discount that collectors often like to know that what’s under the hood looks good, particularly if they use a display back
From a rudimentary perspective, this probably does look pedestrian. But even in the least decorated version, which is what you have chosen to show, I see more finishing than the 321 has by far. If you want a more eye candy version, then this one is probably a better choice:
But even the low quality photo you have posted shows the chatons in the jewels if you look closely, something the 321 is completely devoid of. It shows that each part have had anglage applied to it, which is also not the case on the 321. So if you know what to look for, the finishing on the 30CH is actually a lot better than on the 321, even in this crappy photo.
Looking a little deeper, there are 2 wheels on the 321 that are nicely chamfered:
Every wheel on the 30CH is chamfered and finished with circular graining, even the wheels you cannot see. In addition, the 30CH uses only 1 flat wire stamped spring, for the yoke in the setting mechanism. Every other spring (friction springs excluded as they are always stamped) is made from a solidly machined piece of steel. The 321 in contrast uses a number of stamped wire springs. Springs machined from a piece of steel is one of the key Geneva seal requirements, and Longines nearly makes it there.
The design is very smart - the two chamfered wheels in the 321 photo above are the drive wheel for the chronograph, and the coupling yoke wheel. The drive wheel on the 321 has to be pressed onto an extended post of the fourth wheel of the movement - this operation can cause damage to jewels or the end shake to change, and removing this wheel can cause damage to the bridge (scratches), bent fourth wheels, damaged drive wheels, and I had one instance where trying to remove one of these, the entire pinion of the fourth wheel was pulled right out of the watch is was on so tight.
Here's an 1861 with damage to the bridge, from someone removing the drive wheel:
The Longines eliminates this entire problem by making this drive wheel a part of the fourth wheel...
Omega used this same strategy later on with the 470 and 500 series calibers, where the third wheel is two tiered in the same manner for driving the sweep seconds pinion, before they arranged the wheel train differently for the 550 series.
Here's another smart move by Longines - the 321 bridge has a raised boss on it that the column wheel is mounted to:
It's made of brass, the same material as the bridge, so it's soft and can wear. On the Longines, this is a steel part that is mounted to the bridge - meaning that it is much more robust, but if anything does happen to it, it can easily be replaced where the 321 would require a new bridge or an expensive repair:
The 30CH is also a flyback chronograph, meaning it can be reset without stopping. If you are timing events in quick succession, this is a great feature. But the reality is most people don't actually use their chronographs to time something that requires accuracy.
- Posts
- 29,671
- Likes
- 76,829
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerI understand that there's a different 'feel' when activating the start/stop action, but not sure how that equates to a better accurate timing. Wouldn't each end up with the same elapsed time?
Again, when the chronograph actually clicks over to start or stop is more easily determined on the cam, making the accuracy of you starting the chronograph at the exact time something in the real world starts, better.
I have a 321 and 861 right in front of me right now - I can tell exactly when the 861 is going to break, but the 321 is mushy in comparison...
- Posts
- 3,388
- Likes
- 8,939
blufinz52
··Hears dead people, not watch rotors.Again, when the chronograph actually clicks over to start or stop is more easily determined on the cam, making the accuracy of you starting the chronograph at the exact time something in the real world starts, better.
I have a 321 and 861 right in front of me right now - I can tell exactly when the 861 is going to break, but the 321 is mushy in comparison...
At the risk of beating a dead horse, does the 'feel' of the activation of the start/stop between the two mechanisms substantially affect the elapsed time of an event. In the real world, these chronographs are used for mundane reasons, such as timing a boiling egg for 4 minutes. Will there be an observable difference between the two? My guess is no.
Similar threads
- Posts
- 0
- Views
- 521
- Posts
- 2
- Views
- 1K
- Posts
- 17
- Views
- 8K
- Posts
- 0
- Views
- 2K
