Hot Takes: Speedmaster Moonwatch 321 “Ed White”/“Cernan” in Stainless Steel (2020) Review

Here is a collection of hot takes on the the “New Ed White” / cal.321B. Basically, points below are minutiae that, if mentioned at all in reviews, are mentioned only briefly.

For the detail-oriented amongst us, these points may become a starting list of trivial details you will-or-will-not like about the “Speedmaster Moonwatch 321 in Stainless Steel” (Omega's mouthful name).

Before living with this reference, I’d have told you I’d rather hesalite, brushed not polished, and free of charge; but with the good fortune of having room in budget for such an unnecessary extravagance, I’ve discovered a watch that defies expectations in part because of the trivial details. (It's still damn expensive.)

Let’s start with a hero shot:



In no order, some watch nerd hot takes:

Service = Bienne Only

The vintage 321 and 321A versions of the caliber are "Bienne only" service in Omega’s view (not allowed “local” service).

The 321B version of the caliber in the 2020 “Ed White,” is similarly considered by Omega to be “Bienne only” service. And for the new cal.321B, this means movement parts will not be readily available (at all?) except in Bienne.

So, unless that designation changes (seems unlikely), service of this reference will likely take longer (unless you live in Bienne) and cost more (much more?) on any cal.321B serviced by Omega.

Knowing this would not have changed my mind in purchasing the watch, but knowing it before I purchased would have sat better with me.



Good Nick Name ≠ Easy to Come By

For the detail-oriented amongst us, precision in terminology is a tick-inducing subject. After months of researching (and weeks of wearing) this watch, the terms “Ed White” or “new cal.321” proved too unwieldy and inaccurate for the obsessive side of me.

The reference nickname “Ed White” was claimed long ago to describe the vintage reference. And, calling this reference the “cal.321” conflates it with not only the modern platinum watch, but also every historical Omega reference containing the cal.321 (that’s a lot of conflation), or even future references Omega’s not yet announced. And, technically, this reference contains the cal.321B.

So, in the below, I call this reference the “Cernan cal.321B” or the “Cernan.” This nickname approach quells my own ticks, in that it:

(1) differentiates this reference from the vintage “Ed White” reference;

(2) differentiates the cal.321B movement used in this reference from the cal.321 or cal.321A references used in vintage references;

(3) reflects Omega’s use of Cernan’s watch to build the model underpinning the design of this specific reference (which design connection may go even deeper than marketing materials suggest); and

(4) reflects my personal, romantic, view that Cernan the man deserves his due in the world of watch nicknames; there isn’t going to be a better candidate than this reference, the “Cernan cal.321B.”

Bear with me for any appearance of hubris whatsoever in thinking I might move a nickname needle; I really don’t expect to.

Instead, in drafting the below, writing “Ed White” or merely “cal.321” over and over proved far to uncomfortable for the obsessive in me – and if only I give Mr. Cernan some “low knuckles” for his role in this reference, here’s my go at it.



No Paint in Central Pin = Cernan Design Cue?

For both the Cernan 321B and the new cal.3861s, some have criticized the lack of white paint on the center pin of the chrono and running-second sub-dial handset.

At least for the Cernan, I might have a suggestion as to Omega’s thinking here. It’s widely known that Omega (in brilliant if obvious marketing) built this reference based on a modeling of Cernan’s moonwatch. And Cernan’s watch did not have paint in the center pins (see also photo above from AJTT).

But, at least for the design of the Cernan 321B, the lack of white paint on the center pins is – if nothing else - consistent with the mythology of replicating the aesthetic of Cernan’s moonwatch.

Also, I personally think the watch dial looks good this way (as much as any such minutiae could be said to look “good” or bad”). There’s something tool-watch about it, perhaps? Others find it distracting.



Branding = No Moonwatch/Professional Hype

Speaking of replicating Cernan’s personal watch, it’s worth noting that the Cernan 321B reference’s dial simply says “Omega Speedmaster,” and the sapphire back says only “Speedmaster.”

This simplicity in branding is surely a result of “replicating” the same degree of simplicity found on Cernan’s own watch.

In either event, the resulting simplicity in design and lack of aesthetic branding are I think a key feature of this reference’s overall beauty. Less here, is more.



Sapphire ≠ Milk Ring

As soon as the Cernan 321B was announced and described, the forums lit up with the requisite amount of debate over hesalite vs sapphire. And in my experience the “hesalite vs sapphire” debate is typically at least ~1/3 “milky ring” focused; and at least regarding black dialed Speedmasters, I’m in the anti-milk crowd.

The Cernan proves that the milky ring issue is not inherent to all sapphire watches. The Cernan has a sapphire crystal but does not have the much maligned “milky ring.” How the Cernan manages to thread this needle I don’t know, and I’ve been down one hell of a rabbit hole wondering over it.

Feel free to wonder down that rabbit hole if you want me to show my work, but for present purposes let me give you only the conclusions:

(A) compared to the sapphire cal.1861 Speedys, Cernans have no milky ring, assumedly owing in part to the latter having a redesigned (more domed) crystal and a black gasket (the cal.1861s speedys having a grey gasket); and

(B) strangely, the new sapphire cal.3861 Speedys appear to have the same redesigned crystal and also a black gasket, and are purported by owners to have less milky ring than the cal.1861 Speedys, but as far as I can tell the cal.3861 Speedys continue to have far more milky ring than does the Cernan 321B.

The real take-away here is this: that the Cernan lacks the milky ring matters to me because, all else being equal, I would have preferred a plexi Cernan due to my distaste for the milky ring on black-dialed Speedys. That I didn’t have to compromise on “milky ring,” is a material point.

I held my breath until it arrived in my hand, then sighed in relief.

No doubt sapphire and hesalite continue to have differing optical and physical qualities, for better and worse – but with the Cernan, Omega has closed one considerable gap in the hesalite vs sapphire debate.



Sapphire Omega Logo = Laser Beams in Your Dreams

Speaking of the sapphire crystal vs hesalite: Omega did not want to lose the tiny, romantic logo that is typically stamped in the center of hesalite crystals, so they used a special laser technique on the sapphire.

Specifically, the laser-sapphire logo found on the Cernan 321B is not laser-etched into the surface of the sapphire as one might expect, but instead the laser is used to etch the logo within the depth of the sapphire (that is, the etch is ‘suspended’ within the center thickness of the sapphire).

In a video by an Omega product manager, there is the suggestion that the Cernan reference is the first time this specific technique has been used on a sapphire Omega. While other sapphire Omega’s in the past have had the tiny logo, the suggestion by this representative – to my ear – was that those priors had been surface etched, while the Cernan used the “latest in laser technology” for a newfangled approach.

In any event, here is a detail and then also microscopic photo of the Cernan laser logo (please someone with a prior model’s sapphire logo provide a comparison microscopic picture!)



Dial ≠ Black Varnish?

Best I understand it, the cal.1861 and cal.3861 Speedmaster dials are black in virtue of a varnishing process.

In a video with Omega’s product manager, he says the Cernan’s dial is not varnish but instead some other process but – due to his accent and speed of speech – I cannot decipher. He goes on to mention that this different process allows for more precise application of the various indices, numbering, etc., on the dial.

Ears open for further clarifying of how the Cernan dial coloration process is different from the cal.1861/3861 speedy dials (and if that could portend any differences in how they hold up, or age).



Ceramic Bezel = White Font (Not Silver)

On a “normal” Speedmaster, the bezel is made of aluminum, and the font is the color of the underlying polished aluminum – or “silver” in color, and reflective.

In contrast, the Cernan bezel font is pure white. The white font results from the white enamel used to “fill” the laser-engraved font voids within the ceramic. Under magnification, the font looks like milk filled just below the brim of a black ceramic bowl.

White font gives the bezel a subtly distinctive look. And, perhaps the white font is particularly helpful to the Cernan, which is otherwise highly polished all around (wouldn’t more silver in the bezel font fall flat?).

In any event, the white-on-black tachy font I find slightly more legible than silver-on-black aluminum bezels (as stands to reason, purely by contrast).

Ceramic is known for its strengths, but it is not infallible or indestructible. Nor is enamel. So, it will be interesting to see over time how “aging” occurs on these thin, ceramic bezels.



Lume = More Than Regular Speedy?

Compared to the 1861 or 3861 Speedmasters, the lumed indices in the cal.321 are:

(1) long indices (and, to my eye, better paired with the tear-drop chrono hand);

(2) machined into the face of the dial, creating a ‘trough’ into which the lume itself is nestled; and

(3) according to Omega, stuffed to the brim with lume … moaar lume.

Indeed, to my eye this is a bright watch, for a Speedmaster.

That said, when it comes to lume comparisons, some watches need more lume than others. Black-dial/white-handset Speedmasters are incredibly legible, and as a result don’t “require” as much lume, as often, as might many other watches. I own several watches where at dusk the lume already becomes helpful if not necessary to telling time; on this Cernan 321B, however, I can still read the dial (absent lume) well into twilight.



Lume ≠ Fauxtina (According to Aunt Cheryl test)

This will be controversial, since everyone has their own definition of “fauxtina.”

But let me recast the fauxtina debate a little differently: unlike the Trilogy SM300 (for example), my aunt Cheryl could never be fooled into thinking the Cernan is an old watch.

Only if Omega made the lume green-tinted would it be more difficult to convince aunt Cheryl this watch is old.

But who would want green-tinted lume on this watch? And stark white lume (is that possible?) might combine with stark white bezel font and handset to a “careful what you wish for” overload of stark white.

The off-white lume, instead of making the watch appear vintage, simply makes the watch look good.

Hell, the Cernan’s bracelet would do more to convince aunt Cheryl this watch is old.



Bracelet = A Beautiful Compromise?

The bracelet is beautiful, and comfortable. I can only assume it’s robust. There’s not much else to say here.

Except, the bracelet does not have an on-the-fly adjustable clasp.

For the cost of this watch, an adjustable clasp would have avoided any and all complaints, but only if it would not have required adding depth to the clasp. This is a flat link bracelet, and its beauty is in its flat-linky-ness.

If at Omega they thought “well, we can give them flat-linky-ness or we can give them an adjustable clasp, but we can’t give them both,” then they gave me what I wanted.



Serial Number ≠ Series

Don’t expect to determine the “age” or other info from your Cernan 321B’s serial numbers.

There are two serial series seen to date (887XXXXX and 888XXXXX), those series are shared with other cal.321B watches (such as the platinum, but also possibly other models in the future), and more generally series numbers are not intended to be a reliable LE-like numbering convention.



# of Cernans/Year ≠ 2000

Another non-LE-like numbering convention are Omega’s confusing and non-committal comments on the number of cal.321B movements it may produce each year. There are at least three reasons confounding any attempt to correlate a Cernan serial to its production “age”:

(A) first, the number of cal.321B movements made/yr. cannot be conflated with the number of Cernan references to be made (again, see the platinum model, and possibly other 321B-based watches in the future);

(B) second, Omega representatives have stated that, of the 2000 aspirational movements/yr., only 1000 of those are aspirationally allocated to the Cernan reference;

(C) third and most importantly, none of the above really matters or should be relied upon: Omega may ramp up or down production of movements, add watches utilizing the cal.321B movement, etc., because this is not an LE.


Presentation Box ≠ Limited Edition or Nice

The very expensive Cernan 321B comes in the same presentation box as did the “regular” cal.1861.

Meanwhile, many other Omega watches that are far less expensive come in more impressive presentation boxes. For example, a Tokyo 2020 cost less than ½ the Cernan but came in a rather nice white lacquered presentation box.

On the other hand, my Tokyo 2020 lacquered presentation box has set buried in a closet since the day I received it, along with all the other misfit boxes both beautiful and ordinary.

So, while a nicer box with the Cernan would have been nice, I believe it is for me a purely emotional/marketing “want,” than any sort of practical requirement. And, Omega seems to be asserting (hiding behind the assertion?) that the Cernan 321B is a regular production watch, that gets regular production treatment.

Still, for $14K, I want but don't need a cooler box to sit idle in my closet.

Whole > Sum Parts

The features discussed above come together into a watch that is uniquely beautiful, if not without faults.

Aesthetically, this watch appears incredibly modern on the wrist, while still pulling at the heart of the historically sentimental. Nothing about this watch reads as “vintage” or “reproduction,” except perhaps to the most observant of Speedy/Omega devotee. You have to know the story to see the story.

And for the detail oriented sort, the combination of the obvious design features such as the resurrected cal.321B, straight lugs, and polish only tell only a brute portion of that story; it’s the minutiae that come together to make one grow fully fond of it: the white enamel font of the bezel, the lack of branding, the long/off-white indices, etc., etc.,... all come together into something really quite special.

If you can get one for free or 1/2 price, there is no question you should, as compared to the other Speedmasters for 1/2 this price; if you must pay full price, there are very good reasons to do so. Many of those reasons are minutiae.

Would love to hear other's minutiae, critiques, or corrections to anything above - and most importantly PICTURES

Upgraded to review status.

Thank you.

Another/prior post has several great contributions by others as well, worth a read.

As I have other thoughts I suppose I’ll collect them on this thread.

Size = Punches Above Weight Class

Another topic worth mentioning is the the size of this watch, at the historically-accurate 39.7mm.

I suppose on paper someone could be turned off from this watch if they believe bigger is better.

But the design of this watch is such that 39.7mm wears both modest, but also larger than its measure.

For reference below, I have a 21cm/8.25in wrist.

For comparison is the 39.7mm cal.321B next to a 41mm 2020 Sub. Due to the Sub’s bezel-to-dial proportions, the 41mm Sub I find wears smaller than its on paper measure; conversely, for the same reasons but reversed, the thin-bezeled 39.7mm cal.321B in black-on-black wears larger than its on-paper measure. (The tapering of the cal.321 bracelet also perhaps provides a visual amplification of the head size.)



Meanwhile, a comparison photo of the cal.321B against the 42mm asymmetrical Tokyo 2020 speaks for itself:



The black-on-black of the cal.321B provides a larger visual footprint than does the black-on-white of the Tokyo 2020 Panda. And in this comparison, the straight lugs of the cal.321B does its normal thing of seeming to enlarge the footprint.

So, I’d summarize by saying the on-paper 39.7mm should not be saddled with assumptions.

The Minute Track = A Place For Everything, And Everything In Its Place

Tipped off weeks ago by a few great posts by @@padders, another minutia about the cal.321B worth mentioning: with the resurrection of the cal.321B, the Speedmaster dial’s minute track is once again “aligned” with the frequency of its movement.

Surely and hopefully better technically qualified folks will come along and either correct or add color to the following summary, but this is the lay of it, as I understand it:

The original cal.321/cal.321A beat 5 times per second, and as a result the dial design of the Speedmaster’s minute track reflected that frequency, in having 4 intermediate marks between second indices. As a result, with each tic of the movement the chrono-second would land squarely on a dial mark (or, if the chrono was stopped, it would stop squarely on a dial mark).

To steal once more a photo from @@Vale21 of a vintage cal.321 Speedy dial:



Later, with the introduction of the higher-beat cal.861 in 1969, the chrono-second hand would thereafter only hit on the full second indices because the cal.861 would tic at 6 beats per second.

This slight oddity (or, effect?) was sometimes partially remedied (or, changed?) in certain LEs like the Speedy Tuesday or the FOIS, by changing the dial design to have only two intermediate marks between full seconds:





In any model with a cal.861/1861 but this modified LE-type dial then, having only two such intermediate marks (or three marks per full second) meant the chrono-second hand would at least land on a mark every-other beat (and land inbetween marks the remaining beats).

Which brings us then to the new Speedy cal.3861, retains the same frequency as cal.1861 and bearing still at 6 times per second; but, Omega appears to now have made “permanent” the dial design having 2 rather than 4 intermediate marks:



In other words, the once LE-directed adjustment of two intermediates per second now appears solidified into the mainline Speedmaster, and the chrono-second of the mainline Speedmaster now hits a minute track mark every other beat.

Accordingly, as far as I can tell, the Platinum cal.321B and SS cal.321B are the first Speedmaster models since 1969 to not only have the 4 intermediate marks per second but also hit each mark (those marks were, after all, designed for the cal.321’s 5 beat frequency).

And, with the new Speedy cal.3861 mainline moving to a 2 intermediate mark dial, I suspect the new cal.321B models may be the only Speedy models, LE or otherwise, to hereafter have the 4 intermediate mark dial.

Talk about a thread focused on minutiae: this entry’s point is that, for the 1st time since 1969, the cal.321B Speedmaster’s minute track dial markings once again reflect the frequency of its movement (and it appear we should not expect that to occur on any other non-cal.321B Speedmaster going forward).

All around thanks, and looking forward to your photos - especially the macros 👍👍👍👍

While we’re here again, I’m now 6 months into owning this watch and continue to give it the highest marks.

In particular I’d amplify that this watch has only become more aesthetically beautiful as it has settled into the collection. To the uninitiated, of course, most might never consciously register why this Speedmaster strikes a heightened look compared to a modern standard issue. But the “hot takes” offered in this and similar threads regarding the aesthetic nuances (dial depth, truly straight lugged case, the just-so coloration of lume, length of hash marks, etc.) all come together to achieve a fit, finish and overall aesthetic that isn’t matched by anything else in at least my collection or that I can think of seeing in the flesh.

At the same time, it’s either sporty or elegant depending on how it’s dressed.

Still available of course is the critique of whether these subtle nuances in aesthetic, when compared to the FOIS, justify the material increase in price. The answer to this specific question remains I think purely personal, depending on an individual’s budget, frugality, sentimentality, emotional valuation of relative rarity, etc. There’s simply no right answer for all on the FOIS vs SS321B question.

After 6 months with this watch, I’d currently - with confidence - say that were I forced to a “single watch collection” this would be the keeper.

High praise, especially given your broader collection that also includes a number of Rolex and other Omegas. 👍

All 321s whether new or old, in Omega’s eyes, are to be sent to Bienne.

So, Omega-authorized service centers cannot order 321 parts from Omega. They instead must source parts elsewhere, which as I understand it is increasingly choppy.

1 Year In: “The Most Recent Omega on the Moon”

My NEW321 was received 1 year ago this week, which makes it almost exactly two years since the NEW321 was announced (my deposit was in for ~363 days).

This 1-year milestone deserves a review bring-down, including a touch of time capsule as to production numbers information (such as it is) or rumors as of Dec. 2021.


The “NEW321”

The “Cernan” nickname met no traction, but a better alternative was found. The rather cleaver nickname of “NEW321” is essentially a punchy little acronym for “New Ed White 321.” This nickname was largely suggested by OF forum member @padders in this post

Not to suggest that (the majority of?) folks don’t still use just “321.” To the extent “321” alone works today, I suspect it’s because of the newness of the model. But given the historical use of the 321A across both several decades and models, the use of the 321B in the platinum, and the future possible use of the 321B in additional models, the “321” alone seems confusing.

Besides, the New Ed White “NEW321” nomenclature seems too cute to pass over!


Limited Production: How Many NEW321s Are There!?

As the NEW321 is among Omega’s first forays away from numbered “limited edition” and instead into a “limited production” strategy, we’re left not knowing how many NEW321 are being made. The only verifiable and correct answer: nobody knows.

Nobody knows, and presumably that’s Omega’s point. By not committing to a numbered “limited edition,” Omega is free to throttle up or down production as it sees fit. For all we know, Omega stopped production months ago (just yesterday, my OB’s manager reported not seeing a NEW321 delivered in “over four months”). Or, for all we know, Omega will produce these for another decade.

Meanwhile, the NEW321 serial numbers are unhelpful to backing into production numbers. It’s clearer now that there two separate serial runs of the 321B movements (one beginning with 887X, the other with 888X), and that these serial runs are used in both the NEW321 and the platinum model. We’ll never quite know how many NEW321 (vs platinums) are cased, while the two separate serial runs further confounds production tracking.

Reiterating that the only verifiable and correct answer is that nobody knows, now a few years in we still try to glean some imperfect information. Over on OF’s main NEW321 announcement thread, a few patterns seem vaguely (and imperfectly!) discernible.

• in the now 2 years since announcement of the NEW321 (~18 months since first deliveries), only ~ 40 examples have to date been reported as received by OF members (counting only those received directly from OBs)

• The bulk of these OF-reported deliveries were in late 2020 and early 2021, with the back half of 2021 having provided very few reported deliveries here on OF (this apparent slowdown in deliveries in late 2021 is amplified by my - rather large - OB manager’s assertion just this week that he’d not seen a NEW321 delivered in “probably four months or more” whereas prior to that he was seeing “about 1 a month”)

• NEW321 serial numbers as near as <100 units apart have been delivered by OBs as much as >4 months apart

• the vast majority of NEW321s reported have serial numbers beginning with 887X, while very few are reported with 888X (and a review of C24 movement numbers is consistent here)

• while the highest serial number I’ve personally seen (from photos on C24) is 88702125, an OF contributor reported a 887025XX delivered in October 2021

• if we assume both the 887X and 888X series include only 321B movements (both NEW321 and platinum 321), we might with some confidence say about the the 321B movement production something like: “since introduction of the platinum model in Jan. 2019, over 2500 321B movements have been delivered to date”

• Of these 2500+ 321B movements made to date, presumably (1) few of them were platinums, and (2) few were delivered prior to July 2020 when the NEW321 began delivering, so we might say about the NEW321 model production something like: “in the ~18 months since NEW321 deliveries began, maybe 2000 NEW321s have been delivered to date”

As mentioned in the original post, at some point an Omega representative asserted that of the 2000/year 321 movement aspiration only half of those would be NEW321s. That would suggest more like 1500 NEW321s in the past 18 months since deliveries began.

We’ll not prove it, but my personal armchair view as good as it is expensive, is that more 321 movements go into platinum versions than some assume. While it is true that there are few platinums on C24, suggesting at first glance that not many are sold, my instinct is that $40-50K platinum omegas do not trade in places like C24 with the same regularity as more “hyped” models. But I meanwhile would not underestimate the number of people with money purchasing to hold not flip precious metal watches these days.

In all, from my armchair, I would place my own money bet on there having been only around 1,500 NEW321s distributed to date. (Though no doubt credible arguments to the contrary could place the number at twice that.)

The final thing to say of NEW321 rumors and production trends is this: my large OB manager reported that the NEW321 may be made only “another year or so.” A few others on OF have reported similar messaging from other OBs. While these statements must be taken with a grain of salt, it’s interesting to mark down this rumor now for viewing in retrospect later.


Top of the box (and wrist)

I wrote this at the 6 month point of ownership: “In particular I’d amplify that this watch has only become more aesthetically beautiful as it has settled into the collection… [T]he “hot takes” offered in this and similar threads regarding the aesthetic nuances (dial depth, truly straight lugged case, the just-so coloration of lume, length of hash marks, etc.) all come together to achieve a fit, finish and overall aesthetic that isn’t matched by anything else in at least my collection or that I can think of seeing in the flesh. At the same time, it’s either sporty or elegant depending on how it’s dressed. After 6 months with this watch, I’d currently - with confidence - say that were I forced to a “single watch collection” this would be the keeper.”

Now the one year mark, I can reiterate all these sentiments above, still - with only one minor exception. Yesterday, my aunt gifted me a vintage datejust owned by my late grandfather, which now would be the sole keeper if forced to have only one watch.

But it would take such overpowering sentimentality as a late grandfather’s watch to displace the NEW321 as my most worn and favorited watch. In a head-to-head against any other modern, mere mortal, watch, it’s the NEW321 for me.

Finally, Pictures

This post is lacking photos, but only to tempt you to go check out @Travelller ’s NEW321 high res pictorial review over here

And that’s one year in with “the most recent Omega on the moon”

Regarding The Lume Coloration

For other purposes I took this picture yeaterday, and it struck me as the watches set there side-by-side that the juxtaposition somehow emphasized the natural feel of the NEW321’s lume



Granted, the photograph can play tricks on the eyes regarding white balance levels, etc.; but if nothing else, this photo does in one way demonstrate that any coloration of the lume on the NEW321 is so subtle that you may never notice it unless pointed out and zoomed in on.

(Not to ignore the point floating around that it’s possible Omega hasn’t changed this lume color at all, but rather picked a high vis lume that comes this color “out of the box”)

A really informative well written review which obviously involved a lot of time and research. Well done and thank you. If only the watch wasn't so expensive. I'd have to sell my two existing Speedmasters plus at least one more watch to raise the cash to purchase this model. Not saying that it's not worth it, but it's a stretch. And the Bienne only servicing policy isn't going to help. 🙁 But it certainly is a most attractive watch.