This week, we had the good fortune to visit Omega in Biel for a #speedytuesday get together. For certain, the occasion will always be remembered as the world debut of the resurrected caliber 321. But there was something else that was divulged during part of the program that truly piqued my interest – the absolute […]

Visit Finally!!! The Identity Of The Other NASA-Tested Watches to read the full article.

 

Damn. Great to finally know the answer to this. Not sure why it needed to be such a well-kept secret, but good to finally know... As a Houstonian I wish it had been from a local shop. But that was an absurd notion from the beginning anyways.

 

Unfortunately no real technical discussion on why the 321 was somehow better that the V72...

 

Official confirmation that Rolex isn’t the greatest watch company ever producing the most robust watches ever. Rolex fans won’t be happy with that...

 

I'll wager, it just worked out that way.
It's not like the manufacturers had to go and test their watches to the same standards and modify them to meet the standards accordingly.
My understanding is that the design of the Moon Speedy was the preference of most of the Astronauts.
It is after all the litmus test of the usefulness of a tool when it is preferred by the operators over mostly everything else.
Besides, didn't the Rolex offering simply get knocked out of contention because of a bent hand?

To my mind, the Speedy was probably more user friendly to start with.

 

there was a discussion around that on Tuesday and Petros was sharing with us what he thinks was important for 321 to pass the test while V72 did not. this was the part that I did not understand fully as it was very technical so maybe someone can explain it who also attended nad has far better knowledge of micromechanics

 

Yes, the sweep second hand warped during the high humidity/temperature test and consequently stuck to the other hands, preventing the watch from working. The Longines failed the same test when its crystal warped and came off (twice).

I'm not sure why the big fuss over this information - I found all this out from an erudite Goldsmiths employee, aged 22, a few months ago!

 

What makes you think he knew what he was talking about, no one else at Goldsmiths has ever persuaded me that they do!

 

Well, the information has now been corroborated, so... And it was a she, actually. And she was one in a million... a proper gem, literally.

 

I always wondered what the other watches were .Very cool find!

 

Honestly, I come away from this article feeling like it's incomplete. So we know that Omega, Rolex, and Longines responded to the RFP. Did no American companies (Hamilton, Bulova, etc) do so?

 

Hamilton did, but it was rejected outright because it was a pocket-watch design rather than the wrist-worn models which NASA had requested. Those were the only four companies to respond. Bulova's tantrum happened some years later.

 

Nothing really shattering new. It's known how the other watches failed so it would have been interesting to find out more details why the Speedmaster was survived as the stronger watch... and some more background on the people who finalised the movement for Omega...

 

That’s what I am interested in hearing and what was unfortunately left out of the article. I smell some marketing and would like to understand the reasoning behind the claims...

 

about time we can GTG again

 

If you could get your hands on a 321 and a 72 perhaps you could make a technical comparison? That would be one awesome read! The article gives a clue or two: jostling and rigourous movement affecting timing.
Jens

 

Rolex fans (I'm one) very well know that 'Rolex isn't the greatest watch company ever producing the most robust watches ever.' You obviously don't know much about Rolex fans.