The launch of the latest Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch generated a murmur amongst Speedy enthusiasts. Voiced around the world, we have seen this question or better said, remark, popping up quite frequently. So I am here today to try and address the burning question: can the current Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch still be considered a Moonwatch? And […]

Visit Can The 2021 Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch Professional Still Be Considered A Moonwatch? to read the full article.

 

First, fun read.

Rough topic for a speedy Tuesday though.

 

Although I prefer vintage Speedmasters, if NASA approves the 3861 for manned space flight, that's good enough for me to call it a Moonwatch.

 

In your second para, the 3 watches worn on the moon is described a couple of sentences later as totalling 2, suggesting one ref was added in last minute, which did you forget in your first draft, the Ed White perhaps?

 

Interesting write-up RJB... my opinion is that if the new watch meets (or exceeds) the technical and performance specifications of NASA and of 'the' 1960's era Moonwatch then it certainly can't be disqualified merely on the grounds of not housing a caliber 321 movement (which, let's be honest, is a good movement but is technically inferior to the newer caliber 3861 in the same way that an air cooled engine from a 1967 Porsche 911 is no match for a modern water cooled Porsche 911). I'd certainly prefer to cruise around town in the '67 Porsche, but that's for the nostalgia and not because of any performance attributes.

Maybe a question to ask is, "if NASA was going to fly a crew to the Moon and their lives might depend on having a mechanical watch back-up (ala Apollo 13), would you select a caliber 321 powered watch or one with the new caliber 3861?" If there wasn't going to be any pre-flight testing involved then you might select the 321 simply because it is a known quantity (assuming a new one could be built to the precise specifications), but if NASA fully tested and flight qualified the 3861 I would certainly select it over the 321 due to the accuracy and anti-magnetism performance alone. So both certainly are Speedmaster Professionals, whereas your premise is that the 'Moonwatch' might only exist in time for the 1960's era and can never be resurrected which I'm fine with (at that point, it's really just an argument amongst collectors who won't be wearing the watches as they were intended). A similar question... you're diving in the South Pacific at significant depth and can choose between a caliber 1570 Rolex Sea-Dweller (ref. 1665) or a more modern caliber 3235 Sea-Dweller (ref. 126600) - you and I would probably select the more modern iteration because of it's performance and reliability benefits as well as improvements to manufacturing technology over the last 50 years, yet both are Sea-Dwellers... one just might have COMEX written on the dial whereas the other doesn't.

 

It's a fun article to read on the Fratello site. I say of course it's a Moonwatch. You are still an astronaut even if you didn't go to the moon. You still fly on a rocket even if it didn't go tot the moon. The watch is still flight qualified by NASA, and it's new case looks like the watch 105.12 reference that went to the moon. So it didn't technically go to the moon, but the folklore surrounding this reference that maintains it's homage to the three references that did get on the moon makes it a "moonwatch" to me.

 

Nice article, and whether you call it a moonwatch or not it still looks as cool as the original watches and shows that good design never goes out of style.

 

I have a new Moonwatch and love it...

 

Ah, not really, the Ed White is the one I started with, just a mistake on the number. It should be three.

 

It is merely a marketing term, so they can call whatever they want to but it a bit of a stretch to begin with.

We all know that the 105.003, 105.012 and 145.012 references were used on the moon between 1969 and 1972, and those are all equipped with cal 321.

There was no 861/1861 worn on the moon.
There was no 145.022 worn on the moon.

Those case back inscriptions saying something about “moon” make no sense to me.

 

I fully agree, there's no doubt NASA would take the 3861 over the 321, or better said: Omega would send a watch with a 3861 rather than a 321.

 

Well Omega had to use their new movement... modern times and so...
Very thoughful gesture by Jeffrey Bezos of giving each crew member of the Blue Origin NS-16 sub-orbital spaceflight mission a brand new Speedmaster...
New Shepard 16 flew on the historic July 20... but the new 3861 Speedmaster chronograph is not a " Moonwatch " ...

 

I believe the new 3861 is not flight qualified by NASA, hence the play on words on the back case.

 

Ah - but Omega begs to differ...as do I....

https://www.omegawatches.com/en-us/watches/speedmaster/moonwatch-professional/product

 

I mean, if you want to take things literally, then only the watches that have actually been on the moon count as moon watches. Everything else is just a sham.

 

Fun to read! On the end such a questions make comunity have something to talk about. And I don't mean it's bad. I love Speedy Tuesday and everything around Speedmasters. I thing it's one of the most devoted and still quite healthy one, right?

 

wow

 

True, but the 145.022/861 did orbit the moon on Apollo 17 and was obviously flight qualified by NASA. That's close enough for me.

 

The new 3861 is a pure Moonwatch.

Case closed.

 

Okay. So did NASA approve the cal 3861 officially? Please provide details and then consider case closed...