Community Stories

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

cvalue13
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
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.)

337A5DEB-4BC3-44E1-81B0-A39FD3E26E8F.jpeg


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

82433F50-4845-40C1-B880-F300BB4ED14A.jpeg


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.
 
M'Bob
Posts
6,707
Likes
21,634
cvalue13 cvalue13
On one hand, @m’bob, it certainly appears less stainless than does yours; on the other hand, I suppose we’d need to give it a few decades of wear before having a totally accurate comparison

Ahhh, you are of course assuming that mine wasn’t practically mint...
 
cvalue13
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
M'Bob M'Bob
Ahhh, you are of course assuming that mine wasn’t practically mint...

Darn, I suppose I was; maybe I assumed if it was so minty you'd do more than just show a little ankle
 
M'Bob
Posts
6,707
Likes
21,634
cvalue13 cvalue13
Darn, I suppose I was; maybe I assumed if it was so minty you'd do more than just show a little ankle

B322BD19-7FB3-43B5-9C3B-441D5F5E1C8B.jpeg
 
Vogelphoenix
Posts
56
Likes
85
cvalue13 cvalue13
You want to have clothes on when photographing this watch, because you never know what reflections might pop up 😉

93153DDA-B4FE-43E2-A64C-F95381C94406.jpeg

Not sure I want to know where the hair between pusher and crown came from 😒 Nice pictures otherwise 👍
 
cvalue13
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
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:

C80EB361-654F-442A-9383-484B7D8CC111.jpeg


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:

E0D0C534-B2EB-4D25-8245-314C22BC3B0E.jpeg 0B2B0075-D529-4648-A6C5-B8E7D1E83272.jpeg


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:

6A68757D-A92C-4F9A-A7F2-F7F41ED59737.jpeg


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).
 
R
Posts
54
Likes
51
Thank you for this writeup. I like the "Cernan" name. Let's see if it sticks!
 
Brandrea
Posts
19
Likes
4
cvalue13 cvalue13
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.)

337A5DEB-4BC3-44E1-81B0-A39FD3E26E8F.jpeg


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

82433F50-4845-40C1-B880-F300BB4ED14A.jpeg


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.

Reviving this thread from this newbie to the forum... I thoroughly enjoyed your review, outstanding information really and I thank you for writing it.

I’m new to the brand and I’ve always been very interested in adding a Speedy to my collection. I’d love to hear your comments on how the 321b “wears”; by that, I’m curious how it “feels” on the wrist. I realize this is highly subjective but would appreciate your perspective.

If I could bother you for some side profile shots on the wrist that might be helpful. The lugs appear to curve slightly toward the wrist, but I’m curious if the caseback feels comfortable. I own several Rolex references, and over the years have come to know what I like and what I don’t like in terms of how a watch feels on my wrist. The caseback shape and lug shape appear to be factors I can confidently say, make or break a watch for me in terms of comfort.

I too have the 124060 Submariner, so your photo here was a big help from a size perspective. I have a 7”flat wrist FWIW.

I’m headed to our boutique on Monday to see the 3861 and have expressed my interest in the 321. They said they’ll gladly add my to their list, but would like 50% deposit with April deliver timeframe, (not sure that’s realistic). I’m hesitant to drop this kind of money on a watch without being able to try it on first, so I’m hoping the 3861 will at least give me a point of reference. In your opinion is there any similarity between how the 3861 and 321 wear?

I realize now, I’ve written a jumbled post but a bit more detail on fit and feel would be appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

cvalue13 cvalue13
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.)

337A5DEB-4BC3-44E1-81B0-A39FD3E26E8F.jpeg


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

82433F50-4845-40C1-B880-F300BB4ED14A.jpeg


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.
 
Darlinboy
Posts
8,742
Likes
69,419
Excellent thread on this reference by the OP @cvalue13 though I am coming to it late. 👍
I’m happy with mine all around, acknowledging it is still in the honeymoon stage. My only initial nit is the lack of additional adjustment positions on the clasp. Could have easily been done with no change to the design at all - just drill a few more holes. The new screw & pin contruction of newer Omega bracelets - not a fan.

639E38D7-57AC-40EA-9709-FE00E89E2D66.jpeg


Overall a very well-executed reference and at MSRP - far from the worst value out there in a modern reference. 👍
6DE1D406-5412-4C6F-B303-B5FF58AF05BC.jpeg
Edited:
 
whiteibex
Posts
43
Likes
84
Nice write-up @cvalue13.

Whist I understand the rationale of giving nicknames to references (e.g. "Hulk"), and would have understood if you'd decided to call it "the beast" or "the ultimate speedy", in this case I find that calling it the "Cernan" is misleading as this would be giving it a real name whilst it already has a real name, it's the "Ed White", so I'll keep calling it that way if you don't mind. I also prefer this for personal reasons ;-)

cvalue13 cvalue13
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.

Whilst picking up mine, I specifically asked about the price of the service and was reassured it would be the regular price for a steel chronograph.

cvalue13 cvalue13
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.

Being used to this accent, I understand "black galvanic treatment".
Edited:
 
Darlinboy
Posts
8,742
Likes
69,419
whiteibex whiteibex
...


Being used to this accent, I understand "black galvanic treatment".

The galvanic treatment is not a new technique for Omega. It has been used in other references e.g. the Dark Side of the Moon, for some years.
 
cvalue13
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
Darlinboy Darlinboy
My only initial nit is the lack of additional adjustment positions on the clasp....The newscrew & pin contruction of newer Omega bracelets - not a fan

I generally second this nit. Though, more than “hard” adjustment positions, I’d really rather some on-fly adjustment like the the new Submariner - so that I might size it up or down during the course of the day.

Word to the wise RE the screw & pin construction: I had mine sized at a local AD, who I think was not familiar with the quirks of this screw & pin setup. When I tried the watch back on after sizing, the pin popped out, and the watch fell to the cushioned watch presentation platter.

Suffices to say there was a good bit of tugging and trepidation before I was convinced they’d gotten it right.

Thanks for weighing in



 
cvalue13
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
whiteibex whiteibex
in this case I find that calling it the "Cernan" is misleading as this would be giving it a real name whilst it already has a real name, it's the "Ed White",

I really do understand your trepidation about “Cernan,” and indeed I’ve easily given up that proposed solution.

But “Ed White,” can’t scratch the itch, either: that name is dually taken by the vintage reference. Surely we need our nicknames to be able to discern between two different references, separated by 60+ years, even if they look similar.

I’ve largely instead taken to calling it the SS 321B. That’ll work until Omega releases another stainless model with the 321B inside...
 
cvalue13
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
whiteibex whiteibex
Whilst picking up mine, I specifically asked about the price of the service and was reassured it would be the regular price for a steel chronograph.

Thanks for that addition.

I don’t know if a Bienne-only service is any more expensive than a local Omega-authorized service - or if the answer changes depending on where one lives.

But I’m *pretty certain* it means parts won’t be available for your local watchmaker with an Omega account - if that had been someone’s usual preference for service.

And I’m *fairly confident* it will often involve a longer service time wait (especially if not living near Bienne) - it being my impression that round trip can entail up to 6 months? Maybe those long services are the only ones that get remarked upon, and plenty have faster turn-arounds?
 
Darlinboy
Posts
8,742
Likes
69,419
cvalue13 cvalue13
I generally second this nit. Though, more than “hard” adjustment positions, I’d really rather some on-fly adjustment like the the new Submariner - so that I might size it up or down during the course of the day.

Word to the wise RE the screw & pin construction: I had mine sized at a local AD, who I think was not familiar with the quirks of this screw & pin setup. When I tried the watch back on after sizing, the pin popped out, and the watch fell to the cushioned watch presentation platter.

Suffices to say there was a good bit of tugging and trepidation before I was convinced they’d gotten it right.

Thanks for weighing in

Agree an on-the-fly adjustment would be nice, but that would require a redesign of the clasp & lose some of the vintage aesthetic. I do think they got that right with both the bracelet and watch details. Just give me at least two more holes Omega - four is better - and it’ll add to the vintage look anyway.

You highlight exactly the issue with the two-screws and a pin construction, and it is not unique to this reference. Very easy to miss one side with the pin - it looks secure but it’s not. The screws look fully seated, but they aren’t. You think the pin must be in both holes, but it is only in on one side. There’s some technique to it that took me quite a few tries to get right. I know I am going to have to add a link for warmer weather, so it multiplies the desire for a couple more adjustment positions.
 
cvalue13
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
whiteibex whiteibex
Being used to this accent, I understand "black galvanic treatment".

Appreciate the clarification; makes sense.

Darlinboy Darlinboy
The galvanic treatment is not a new technique for Omega. It has been used in other references e.g. the Dark Side of the Moon, for some years.

Great add, thanks.

Can you think of any that don’t have applied indices?

Asking because the machined lume trenches may or may not be unique to the 321B (the video suggests it is), and wonder if other galvanic dials are the most likely place to find out otherwise.
 
cvalue13
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
Darlinboy Darlinboy
so it multiplies the desire for a couple more adjustment positions.

On the other hand, I find it’s a rather “short” clasp as is - meaning, when fully open, it does not drastically increase the circumference of the bracelet. (I’ve got fairly meaty hands, and it barely slips through.)

So in wonder if more holes would be of limited utility to folks like me, because if I “shortened” the clasp any further I might be unable to slip it on!

BTW, agree RE the on-fly compromise - I wouldn’t trade it for the aesthetics of the clasp, but if I could be greedy and have both...
 
Darlinboy
Posts
8,742
Likes
69,419
cvalue13 cvalue13
Appreciate the clarification; makes sense.



Great add, thanks.

Can you think of any that don’t have applied indices?

Asking because the machined lume trenches may or may not be unique to the 321B (the video suggests it is), and wonder if other galvanic dials are the most likely place to find out otherwise.

I am not familiar with other lume “trenches” on Omega references, but the technique of having a recess or well for the lume material has been around for decades - not an Omega innovation.
 
30 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

cvalue13

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

cvalue13 Omega Watch Reviews
frazierspa
frazierspa
Posts
43
Views
38K