Thanks @tyrantlizardrex. I think the condition of the 125 is a bit rough, but because they don't come up for sale locally too often I guess I was looking at it with rose coloured glasses.

The Flightmaster isn't too bad, but I have to be honest with myself and realize that the asking prices for both are a bit too high at $3700 USD.

 

Works out to about £2700 for me with today’s rates, which is much more than I’d be willing to pay for either of those particular watches.

Best advice I can offer is to find one of each to try on, decide if you actually like them in the metal and on your wrist, and then go hunting.

Good examples of both models pop up, at sensible prices. You just might have to bide your time.

And we’re in the seasonal lull now... keep your eyes peeled, but you might not see many decent watches up for sale before spring.

 

Yeah, the asking prices are a bit optimistic and so were my feelings about the condition.

I've owned a Flightmaster and loved the design and wrist presence but foolishly sold it.

Never tried a 125 and have only seen pics so I have no idea how I'd like it on my own wrist.

 

Love both of these models but with a choice between it would be Flightmaster for me.

 

It’s a very different feel. Much more square and on top of the wrist than the flightmaster, however the bracelet does force it to wrap around really comfortably.

If I find a good one at a price I like, I’ll be adding a 125 to my collection.

 

@WhatYourWatchSay for these two models, the condition of the case matters a lot imo, as other members have mentioned, might be worthwhile to wait for better examples.
In terms of wear, as an owner of both with a moderately sized wrist (at 6.5”) I have to say the 125 is even more comfortable than the Flightmaster due to a very well balanced weight ratio between the case and the bracelet. I hope that helps with your decision making.

 

Thanks for your thoughts on these @timeismoney. The Flightmaster appears to have been polished which I hadn't noticed at first. The 125 is just plain rough. Surprised to read that the 125 sits so well on the wrist. I assumed it would be too top heavy.

 

The 125 has quite the loss of metal on it, the case is really bad. Flightmaster also, owned both for my 6.25" wrist the 125 was too big and blocked too much of my watch funds in a non wearable vintage piece.
I'm doing my best to bring my flightmaster to spec and from what i see it could be worn daily both on mesh, the original bracelet and some rubber and leather straps... 125, not so much unless for the Space "seatbelt" strap type.

 

Now that's an interesting take on this. Comfort on the wrist would be a chief consideration in a vintage purchase.

 

I didn't find any comfort at all, then again I love the Longines legend diver while some people hate the two crown design...
Strap and bracelet options are a big deal in my opinion and I don't see how I'd make anything but the factory one look good on the 125...

 

Looks like someone bought the 125. Congrats to the seller and I hope the buyer is happy with their purchase.

 

Well since it’s revived:

Id want to distinguish between the first Flightmaster with cal.910 and 24hr indicator, vs the later cal.911 without 24hr indicator, resulting in following order:

(1) cal.910
(2) 125
(3) cal.911

A “Flightmaster” watch with a 12hr dial absent a 24hr indicator seems three-legged dog, to me.

 

Unless you live in a cave, can you explain the use of a 24hr indicator?
The only time I have found it useful is to set the date, and the Flightmaster doesn’t have the date.

 

Would love to chat about that

To first level-set the discussion: we’re here talking about the relative utility of mechanical watch complications, where “relative utility” is a pretty narrow bandwidth.

That said:

Most GMT or second time-zone watches utilize a 24hr hand (rather than the flightmaster’s 12hr hand) precisely in order to both (1) actually display true GMT-based times (which are based on a 24hr format), and perhaps more important (2) have, on the face of the watch, accurately displayed time.

To explain (2) above: a 12hr hand does not alone accurately tell the time. Instead, the watch itself only tells the user that, in the 12hr format, it is either [X] time in the first 1/2 of the day or [X] time in the second 1/2 of the day. The watch-wearer must reference third source information to actually and accurately tell the time (eg, look outside and see if it’s daylight).

The Flightmaster has an independently adjustable second time hand, a rather unique complication at the time of its manufacture. As would later be seen in the Rolex GMT II and others with independently set second time hands, it made for a rather useful dual-time device that could be used for both pure “GMT” time (a 24hr time-telling approach) or for any other second time zone using the 24hr format. If it had the 24hr indicator.

And these accuracy/error issues are not purely theoretical: it is, after all, why 24hr time formats are used wherever accurate time-telling is important (military time, NASA mission time, medicines, naval and aeronautic uses, etc., etc.)

Its additionally the case that being unable to tell time using daylight is not a problem limited to only a cave environment: daylight is an unavailable third reference point near the poles, flying at high speeds or at altitude, underwater, etc. (The international space station experiences > 45+ sunrises/sunsets in the course of a 24hr day.)

(Further but a bit of a different matter: large portions of the world actually use 24hr time rather than 12hr time, the latter being a largely British/colonial introduction.)

So, these are all roughly the reason I say the flightmaster should have a 24hr indicator to make sense of its second-zone 12hr hand.

As I understand it, Omega changed this design for another reason critical to such accuracy/error sensitive environments: a running second hand provides confirmation the watch is still running at all.

However, that Omega deleted the 24hr indicator to provide running seconds was a bit of a “one step forward two steps back”.

Possibly why an otherwise innovative watch/movement (designed by Alfred Piguet) did not ultimately have a long runway (bad pun unintended).

To be fair, designing watches for these uses was a rather new venture at the time, and there were winners and losers depending on design approaches relative to utility. In the main, watches that utilized a 24hr second time/GMT hand tended to “win out” compared to watches that attempted instead a second 12hr hand + 24hr indicator.

But least successful were watches with 12hr second time hands and no 24hr indicator

 

The Flightmaster was certainly polished. But it is still in a reasonably good condition, and it is such a cool piece.

 

Thanks for the in depth and thoughtful response. I do think a 24 hr gmt hand makes sense, but for a local traveler like myself I have never needed it, and find it easier to read a 12hr hand. I think only people navigating the international dateline would actually make use of it?

As for am/pm indicator, I think there are better references, (daylight 99% of the time, remembering how long ago you got out of bed for the rest) and a moving second hand is far more important. I couldn't get on with the 910, nothing moving on a watch just feels wrong!

 

all fair for the casual user.

remembering though that it is the purported “flightmaster” ...

And, remembering that we’re here not talking about your local time AM/PM, but instead one far away (either GMT proper, or instead some other).

In any event, I would think Omega would have done best to keep both the 24hr and running seconds while - if anything had to go - losing the hour totalizer. But pilots in particular may also squawk at that

 

Flightmaster!

 

Flightmaster for me ! I love this colored hands, it gives it a cooler finition

 

which did you go with finally?