Holy Grail reissue: conceivable project or pipe dream?

Pascal S · Jan 23, 2022

If that's the hurdle, they could wrestle back from Bréguet the right to resurrect the calibre 1040/1041, which is the spiritual ancestor of the 1045 after all and doesn't have any resin part in sight. Moving the 24 display from the 9 o'clock register should be feasible with a bit of work. And presto, you have a movement that wouldn't provoke sneers from casual collectors!

What's more, that would open the door to another reissue: the "Big Blue" Seamaster chronograph!

Archer · Jan 23, 2022

Pascal S
If that's the hurdle, they could wrestle back from Bréguet the right to resurrect the calibre 1040/1041, which is the spiritual ancestor of the 1045 after all and doesn't have any resin part in sight. Moving the 24 display from the 9 o'clock register should be feasible with a bit of work. And presto, you have a movement that wouldn't provoke sneers from casual collectors!

What's more, that would open the door to another reissue: the "Big Blue" Seamaster chronograph!

I don’t know what casual collectors think about the 5100, but as a watchmaker I consider it to be nothing very special.

The 1041 is a far better movement overall.

Pascal S · Jan 23, 2022

I've heard diverging opinions from watchmakers regarding the Lemania 5100. Some like you see it as nothing special, or even unpleasant to work on, and others find it cleverly engineered and like it for it.

As for me, I'm no arbiter in these matters. I just know that as a user, it ticks all boxes in terms of practicality and legibility. And as a watch enthusiast I see it as the last of a dying breed. Back in 1974, before the quartz tsunami redefined the horological landscape forever, chronographs were still above all tools, and practical matters and cost trumped esthetics. Using Delrin was seen the same way as we use carbon nowadays on planes and automobiles: it was progress. I like that honesty in engineering, even if for today's consumer this notion might be seen as quaint and outdated. People want something pretty to look at because a watch is no longer a tool but a piece of jewelry. That's too bad in my opinion, but I'm myself a relic, so it figures that today's consumer philosophy might fly over my head.

Archer · Jan 23, 2022

Pascal S
People want something pretty to look at because a watch is no longer a tool but a piece of jewelry.

If they weren’t seen as jewelry, there wouldn’t be any new mechanical watches. We can all wish for a different world than the one we actually live in (as I do almost daily the last couple of years), but unfortunately reality doesn’t work that way.

Pascal S · Jan 23, 2022

Ain't that the truth? <sigh>

But romantics like myself can still carve out a bit of dream out of a reality they don't necessarily like. Deep down, I know that the Holy Grail, a watch I once had the privilege of owning before falling on hard times, is meant to remain an elusive beast that won't see any modern incarnation, even though I can think of a few collectors around me who would, like me, crawl naked over broken glass to get one. But we're a tiny niche, and Omega doesn't usually cater to such niches.

Donn Chambers · Jan 23, 2022

Can’t see that Omega would ever consider redoing that movement and watch, even though I am a fan of the central minute counter - I owned a Speedmaster Mark III for several years and still have a quartz chronograph with the same functionality.

Omega is about making profits. While that watch is beloved by a small sector of fans, it won’t appeal to a large number of buyers. They already make several automatic Speedmaster models, so why introduce a new one which would require substantial re-engineering to make it co-axial (which Omega has moved to exclusively now). They are not going to just drop in a Swatch ETA movement anymore and rename it an Omega movement.

if you really want this watch, petition Tissot, not Omega.

cvalue13 · Jan 23, 2022

Pascal S
If that's the hurdle, they could wrestle back from Bréguet the right to resurrect the calibre 1040/1041, which is the spiritual ancestor of the 1045 after all and doesn't have any resin part in sight. Moving the 24 display from the 9 o'clock register should be feasible with a bit of work. And presto, you have a movement that wouldn't provoke sneers from casual collectors!

What's more, that would open the door to another reissue: the "Big Blue" Seamaster chronograph

Sign me up for a Big Blue

I think you’ll like this thread

cvalue13 · Jan 23, 2022

Archer
The 1041 is a far better movement overall.

This, I’d like to see what Omega would do with it in 2022. Not that Omega would be remotely interested, but instead to imagine what it would be if they were to give it their best try.

Fatcat · Jan 24, 2022

I don’t want a Holy Grail re-issue I just bought one 😀)))))

Fatcat · Jan 24, 2022

But a huge Diver watch is coming this year 😀)))) , close to the Ultra deep for shure .

Pascal S · Jan 24, 2022

Donn Chambers
...why introduce a new one which would require substantial re-engineering to make it co-axial (which Omega has moved to exclusively now). They are not going to just drop in a Swatch ETA movement anymore and rename it an Omega movement.

What re-engineering? Since one of the very first watch movement adapted with a co-axial escapement was a calibre 1045 (see link in my original post), the engineering has already been done, courtesy of George Daniels.

Donn Chambers
if you really want this watch, petition Tissot, not Omega.

Why? Was the original 376.0822 a Tissot that had somehow been rebranded an Omega? I must have missed that.

Besides, given that Tissot had been using both normal and decontented versions of the Moonwatch movement, I don't remember Omega having to ask them if they minded seeing it upgraded into calibre 3861. Did you?

padders · Jan 24, 2022

The first generation double layer coax escapements turned out to be full of problems so I doubt very much any early developments would be all that helpful. George’s version was great on paper but has taken 20 years to make reliable: most likely they’d need to develop a triple layer escapement for it. Fitting a triple layer escapement to an otherwise original 1045 would be like putting lipstick on a pig.

Omega do still sell a movement sans coax in the 321 so perhaps that wouldn’t be an absolute impediment to using the 1045. If RJ were a massive fan I guess a small scale edition like a Speedy Tuesday Grail would be one way but I just can’t see it working. They would have to start manufacturing movements from scratch with all the associated start up and development costs. Note how expensive the watches featuring the 321 are and that one must have been pretty easy to manufacture really despite what Omega claim. Can you see people paying £10-20k for a recreated Grail? I can’t. Though to be fair I can’t understand the values of the originals either so what do I know? You only need to take a look with the back off to realise it was designed to be a low cost high g resistant workhorse for the nuclear battlefields of central Europe. A mechanical G Shock for squaddies if you will. It has no place in a Swiss piece with aspirations to high end horology.

Pascal S · Jan 24, 2022

Price point would certainly be a major issue, and despite my irrational love for this watch, I can see how this might be a nightmare for Omega in the even of a revival, albeit brief.

At the time of its first appearance, the Holy Grail was roughly the price of its contemporary Moonwatch, but now that the latter has made the switch to co-axial (alongside the price jump that could be expected with it), it is indeed difficult to picture people paying North of $10,000 for a newly made reissue with just an original calibre 1045. The fact that I would if I had that sort of money stashed up is besides the point, because as a complete Lemania nut I'm not representative of any sort of customer base.

I'm no psychologist, but maybe my real issue is that the original HG is so scarce. Until one has tried it on the wrist, it is impossible to accurately measure how extraordinary the presence of this watch is. Many collectors I've interacted with agreed on that point, including one who's a co-author of a well known reference book on the Moonwatch. So that's why it's such a pity that so few will get to experience a watch that could have turned into a success had it been introduced on the market at another time.

Donn Chambers · Jan 24, 2022

Pascal S
Why? Was the original 376.0822 a Tissot that had somehow been rebranded an Omega? I must have missed that.

Besides, given that Tissot had been using both normal and decontented versions of the Moonwatch movement, I don't remember Omega having to ask them if they minded seeing it upgraded into calibre 3861. Did you?

my point was that Swatch is not going to put a 5100 (or 104*) clone into an Omega watch - that’s not where they have positioned the brand. If they were to do this, they would place it in a Tissot (or Mido, etc) watch. It would, of course, not be an exact duplicate of the “Holy Grail” you seek, but it would likely be the closest you could get in a modern iteration.

of course, I could be wrong and maybe Swatch/Omega is looking to recreate a watch that didn’t sell very well at the time, is still only popular among a very few collectors, and that uses a rather plain movement that hasn’t been manufactured for a decade or so. Maybe they’ll start making f300 tuning fork Constellations again, too.

Pascal S · Jan 24, 2022

I'd separate the 1040/1041, whose evolutions are now powering only Bréguet chronographs, and the more modern and economical 5100 whose core architecture was recycled and turned into cheap decontented ETA movements. These are two very different animals. And while the general attitude nowadays seems to be dismissive towards this latter tractor of a movement because of its resin parts, it is ironic to consider that Omega chose to keep it exclusive for 4 years before any other brand was given access. A different era with different priorities...

My dream is to have a brief return of the 376.0822 Omega Speedmaster, and not to simply have another Lemania 5100 chronographs. I've owned many of these over the years, and only one has left the indelible mark created by the Omega, which somehow managed to merge the visual qualities and legibility of the movement with a beefed up Moonwatch case (thicker to accommodated the automatic movement), and mounted on the great 1450 bracelet.

If you haven't had the chance to strap one onto your wrist, you just can't really appreciate the visual sweet spot hit by Omega with this chronograph, and in great part the reason why it remains popular with whoever has seen it "in the metal". I can only encourage anyone to try one of these beasts on if given the opportunity, because simple pictures simply don't do it justice.

Archer · Jan 24, 2022

Pascal S
What re-engineering? Since one of the very first watch movement adapted with a co-axial escapement was a calibre 1045 (see link in my original post), the engineering has already been done, courtesy of George Daniels.

So does Omega have George's watch? Do they have drawings, or other technical information that would show them what to do?

Even if they did, do you believe that no other engineering would be needed?

Pascal S · Jan 24, 2022

I'm confident that Omega has at the very least a copy of the watch's drawings. I leave room in the universe that I might be wrong on that point, but given that this chronograph was probably used extensively in "selling" the co-axial concept to the brand, I doubt their engineers didn't request all the relevant technical details.

Yes, additional work would be needed, but I doubt that it would amount to the "substantial re-engineering" you suggest, unless our perception of the word "substantial" diverge quite a lot. The end result would probably not be identical to George's watch, but the latter probably provides a sound starting base upon which some refinement work would be performed by Omega's designers, with the benefit of over a decade of experience in the co-axial technology.

Archer · Jan 24, 2022

Pascal S
Yes, additional work would be needed, but I doubt that it would amount to the "substantial re-engineering" you suggest, unless our perception of the word "substantial" diverge quite a lot.

If this is a reply to my post (it would help if you would quote who you are replying to) then I'll just point out that you are confused. I've never used the word "substantial" in any of my posts on this topic.

Regardless, to make this seem like it's just a matter of a few mods with existing engineering, is very naïve.

140dave · Jan 24, 2022

I am in the "why" camp on this. I know the hype around this watch but it is hype about a rare watch not necessarily a truly desirable one. There is another thread about rarity vs desirability and this one falls flat into that camp for me. Would I like to have a "Holy Grail"? YES, I sure would! But only because they are rare, not because I really want an automatic Speedy. For that reason I think a re-issue of this would really fall flat, IMO no one outside of a collector knows or cares about this reference.

edit: I should have said "only a few" instead of "no one" (IMO no one outside of a collector knows or cares about this reference.)

Pascal S · Jan 24, 2022

Archer
If this is a reply to my post (it would help if you would quote who you are replying to) then I'll just point out that you are confused. I've never used the word "substantial" in any of my posts on this topic.

I apologize for what was indeed a bit of confusion on my part. Another poster had made that assertion, and I mistakenly thought it was you. So please ignore that bit in my earlier post

Archer
Regardless, to make this seem like it's just a matter of a few mods with existing engineering, is very naïve.

Possibly, but that's a luxury I afford myself as a dreamer and not being a professional in that field. And I'm not saying that it's gonna take just a few tweaks either, so please don't oversimplify what I wrote.

Yes, we all can be cynical and agree on the fact that the Holy Grail revival will never happen: too costly, not enough of a fan base for the original, and a general attitude largely dismissive for the calibre 1045 despite its past accomplishments and durability on Omega's catalogue. Then what? We have Omega's management and Swatch Group board to worry about bottom lines and market share. If among enthusiasts we cannot playfully close our eyes and imagine the Omega from past times we'd like to see resurrected, then I'm not sure there's a point in sharing about our passion.

You all tell me, as I'm the newbie here.

Holy Grail reissue: conceivable project or pipe dream?

Pascal S

Archer

Pascal S

Archer

Pascal S

Donn Chambers

cvalue13

cvalue13

Fatcat

Fatcat

Pascal S

padders

Pascal S

Donn Chambers

Pascal S

Archer

Pascal S

Archer

140dave

Pascal S

Similar threads

My Holy Grail Moonwatches.

From The Archives: The Omega Speedmaster Holy Grail

Omega Speedmaster 376.0822 Holy Grail

Building My Dream Speedmaster

Speedy Tuesday: My Dream Speedmaster Is An Impossible-To-Find NASA Watch

Omega Box for Holy Grail