Help me choose between an Ed White and a Red Sub

Cortezthekiller · Dec 3, 2016

Ed White. However, I chose a 145.012 over an 105.003 because of the moon landings. Someday I might sell just to get a 105.012.

I like the 1680 Submariner. It is not as clean as the 5513 but I prefer to have a date window. In this case, I chose a tropical 16803 (sapphire crystal and gold surrounds on the indexes). It was the first two-tone Sub reference and my blue sunburst dial has faded to a bubbly gold. I wear it with suit and tie on a weekly basis.

Screwbacks · Dec 3, 2016

watchknut
Probably not, NASA only put things into space and never under the water...at least not intentionally.

Faz
As much as I love Speedmasters and especially the straight lug versions, the choice is clear...the Red 1680. Ed Whites were a pain before the bubble and even more so today. Finding a good one was always an issue and once you have one, not as versatile as the red subs as they are tough as nails and...

im quoting again the statement - in effect that "ed whites were a pain before the bubble and even more so today. Finding a good one was always an issue and once you have one, not as versatile as the red sub as they are tough as nails.."

what??

think first that each watch is a class of their own - one is automatic diver, the edwhite is a lemania 321 chonograph. so how and where did that conclusion come from? it would have been different if it is a choice btween sm300 and redsub. that's why my question is even if the redsub is a diver, i wish it went through the nasa test, to check toughness of the watch be it for space or water. beside, chronos have more complication compared to a simple automatic.😉

the conclusion is totally out of place and rolexist. the choice imo is a matter of price point, affordability, availability and taste.

watchknut · Dec 3, 2016

Perazzi or Krieghoff...same difference.

Faz · Dec 4, 2016

Screwbacks
im quoting again the statement - in effect that "ed whites were a pain before the bubble and even more so today. Finding a good one was always an issue and once you have one, not as versatile as the red sub as they are tough as nails.."

what??

think first that each watch is a class of their own - one is automatic diver, the edwhite is a lemania 321 chonograph. so how and where did that conclusion come from? it would have been different if it is a choice btween sm300 and redsub. that's why my question is even if the redsub is a diver, i wish i went through the nasa test, to check toughness of the watch be it for space or water. beside, chronos have more complication compared to a simple automatic.😉

the conclusion is totally out of place and rolexist. the choice imo is a matter of price point, affordability, availability and taste.

Rolexist? Sounds like some kind of disease...like leprosy 😲
Before drawing your conclusions, I invite to check out who wore what in outer space and to the moon. You might be surprised....Now back to our regular programming....
🍿

ohmzx · Dec 4, 2016

Omega all day long but if you like to show off - Rolex it is.

Faz · Dec 4, 2016

They're coming out of the wood work...

Longbow · Dec 4, 2016

watchknut
Probably not, NASA only put things into space and never under the water...at least not intentionally.

Sure they do. Under water training in the Neutral Bouyancy Lab is standard for spacewalk training. Which begs the question: how do astraunauts check if they can operate their watch while suited up and submerged if the thing doesn't have water resistant pushers?
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/fored...Weightless_Environment_Training_Facility.html

Davidt · Dec 4, 2016

Cortezthekiller
Ed White. However, I chose a 145.012 over an 105.003 because of the moon landings. Someday I might sell just to get a 105.012.

I'm pretty sure the 105.003, 105.012 and 145.012 all made it to the moon. E.g. Wasn't Cernan wearing both a 105.003 and 105.012.

watchknut · Dec 4, 2016

Longbow
Sure they do. Under water training in the Neutral Bouyancy Lab is standard for spacewalk training. Which begs the question: how do astraunauts check if they can operate their watch while suited up and submerged if the thing doesn't have water resistant pushers?
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/fored...Weightless_Environment_Training_Facility.html

My comment was a joke...the point was that a Sub is designed to go the depths of the seas, and a Speedy was designed to go to outer space.

watchknut · Dec 4, 2016

ohmzx
Omega all day long but if you like to show off - Rolex it is.

FYI, most Omega collectors love Rolex too, and vice versa.

Archer · Dec 4, 2016

Longbow
Sure they do. Under water training in the Neutral Bouyancy Lab is standard for spacewalk training. Which begs the question: how do astraunauts check if they can operate their watch while suited up and submerged if the thing doesn't have water resistant pushers?
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/fored...Weightless_Environment_Training_Facility.html

I have been through hundreds of photos of astronauts training in the tank, and never once been able to find one with someone wearing a Speedmaster. Not saying it didn't happen, but I could not find a photo of it...

Archer · Dec 4, 2016

Screwbacks
that's why my question is even if the redsub is a diver,

Let me answer that for you - yes it's a diver. It is literally in the name of the watch - below the sea...

sub-
1.
a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin ( subject; subtract; subvert; subsidy); on this model, freely attached to elements of any origin and used with the meaning “under,” “below,” “beneath” ( subalpine; substratum), “slightly,” “imperfectly,” “nearly” ( subcolumnar; subtropical), “secondary,” “subordinate” ( subcommittee; subplot).

mariner
(ˈmærɪnə)
n
(Nautical Terms) a formal or literary word for seaman
[C13: from Anglo-French, ultimately from Latin marīnus marine]

ma·rine
(mə-rēn′)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to the sea

Bill Sohne · Dec 4, 2016

watchknut
My comment was a joke...the point was that a Sub is designed to go the depths of the seas, and a Speedy was designed to go to outer space.

Actually the speedy was not designed for outer space, that was what was so brilliant about the entire story.... off the self and right out of the box x!

watchknut · Dec 4, 2016

Bill Sohne
Actually the speedy was not designed for outer space, that was what was so brilliant about the entire story.... off the self and right out of the box x!

Didn't realize it was off the shelf to on the moon! That is nuts, I assumed it went through a round of redesign to meet the requirements. Very cool, but makes total sense given the timing of the race to the moon.

Screwbacks · Dec 4, 2016

Archer
Let me answer that for you - yes it's a diver. It is literally in the name of the watch - below the sea...

sub-
1.
a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin ( subject; subtract; subvert; subsidy); on this model, freely attached to elements of any origin and used with the meaning “under,” “below,” “beneath” ( subalpine; substratum), “slightly,” “imperfectly,” “nearly” ( subcolumnar; subtropical), “secondary,” “subordinate” ( subcommittee; subplot).

mariner
(ˈmærɪnə)
n
(Nautical Terms) a formal or literary word for seaman
[C13: from Anglo-French, ultimately from Latin marīnus marine]

ma·rine
(mə-rēn′)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to the sea

sub-space. 😁

im not ignorant abt the subs since ive have seen enough or handled a lot of it in real steel like this (from friends) -

Spacefruit · Dec 4, 2016

watchknut
My comment was a joke...the point was that a Sub is designed to go the depths of the seas, and a Speedy was designed to go to outer space.

Now I usually keep quite about the space connection, but having heard an excellent talk by the equipment director of the space program, I understand the following.

The speedmaster was in existence before NASA released the requirements for a watch. The watches were all collected by NASA through official channels following an established government protocol for equipment acquisition.
The 2915 was designed for motor racing timekeeping, long before the NASA testing.(guessing 1958ish?)
The crown guard case, the 105.012 addressed NASA's concerns to protect the pushers and crown, and this reference was adopted for Apollo.
The tests (on the 105.003) were completed in 1965. The 105.012 was in production before this (from 1963) so I do not think going to space influenced the design.

There is no evidence NASA had any input into the design of the watch. In fact the only two (minor) suggestions they offered were ignored.

efauser · Dec 4, 2016

Spacefruit
In fact the only two (minor) suggestions they offered were ignored.

Just like today when you ask them not to refinish the case or replace hands.

watchknut · Dec 4, 2016

As

Spacefruit
Now I usually keep quite about the space connection, but having heard an excellent talk by the equipment director of the space program, I understand the following.

The speedmaster was in existence before NASA released the requirements for a watch. The watches were all collected by NASA through official channels following an established government protocol for equipment acquisition.
The 2915 was designed for motor racing timekeeping, long before the NASA testing.(guessing 1958ish?)
The crown guard case, the 105.012 addressed NASA's concerns to protect the pushers and crown, and this reference was adopted for Apollo.
The tests (on the 105.003) were completed in 1965. The 105.012 was in production before this (from 1963) so I do not think going to space influenced the design.

There is no evidence NASA had any input into the design of the watch. In fact the only two (minor) suggestions they offered were ignored.

Always, thanks for that info.

Screwbacks · Dec 4, 2016

Spacefruit
The crown guard case, the 105.012 addressed NASA's concerns to protect the pushers and crown, and this reference was adopted for Apollo.
The tests (on the 105.003) were completed in 1965. The 105.012 was in production before this (from 1963) so I do not think going to space influenced the design.

thanks very much for the simpliest explanation. i hope this answers my very 1st suspicion on my cb66 which has a very diffused crown and clearly aligns with the pusher's tips.

Bill Sohne · Dec 4, 2016

Spacefruit
Now I usually keep quite about the space connection, but having heard an excellent talk by the equipment director of the space program, I understand the following.

The speedmaster was in existence before NASA released the requirements for a watch. The watches were all collected by NASA through official channels following an established government protocol for equipment acquisition.
The 2915 was designed for motor racing timekeeping, long before the NASA testing.(guessing 1958ish?)
The crown guard case, the 105.012 addressed NASA's concerns to protect the pushers and crown, and this reference was adopted for Apollo.
The tests (on the 105.003) were completed in 1965. The 105.012 was in production before this (from 1963) so I do not think going to space influenced the design.

There is no evidence NASA had any input into the design of the watch. In fact the only two (minor) suggestions they offered were ignored.

Hi Spacefruit....

thanks for the details... from NASA!!!

Good hunting

Bill Sohne

Help me choose between an Ed White and a Red Sub

Cortezthekiller

Screwbacks

watchknut

Faz

ohmzx

Faz

Longbow

Davidt

watchknut

watchknut

Archer

Archer

Bill Sohne

watchknut

Screwbacks

Spacefruit

efauser

watchknut

Screwbacks

Bill Sohne

Similar threads

Help me to choose between omega smp and po

Would you own a 321 Ed White AND a 3861 Moonwatch? Why or why not

Help me choose between these two A3630s!

[updated] —it’s 36m! > help me choose between 2 Day Dates

Help me choose between two vintage Omegas

Speedmaster Caliber 321 "Ed White" - A Pictorial Review