Forums Latest Auctions Members

How likely is Omega to release a steel 42mm Moonwatch with 321 calibre?

  1. SergioRZ

    SergioRZ May 22, 2020

    Posts
    36
    Likes
    18
    Debate and arguments is what was happening before that. It's completely different, isn't it? Come on, I can move on for sure, but what happened did happen and that person should learn how to behave cordially towards others.
     
  2. Archer

    Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker May 22, 2020

    Posts
    17,442
    Likes
    36,651
    Well, lets look at what you said in the thread. Here you stated your desire for an accurate replica of the 321 watch:

    "I've always wanted a "true" Moonwatch... 42mm, steel, c321... even better with hesalite crystal and solid back, just like the actual Moonwatch that was on the moon"

    Then you said you would accept something else, but only if the movement was much better:

    "I'd take a Moonwatch with a really great movement inside (if c321 is not possible)... it wouldn't be "the one", that very special "true Moonwatch"... but at least it would look like the real deal and operate like the high-end mechanical chronograph watch it should be.

    Well, not really what I wanted, but if they do release it with the c3861, I'll buy one."

    And then when the debate about movement upgrades started, you said that this wasn't really the reason for you wanting the watch you originally wanted, so it was irrelevant:

    "'ll have to disagree on the evaluation criteria you chose to define a better movement.
    But that is irrelevant for me and to this discussion, that's not the reason why I would love to have a c321 Moonwatch accurate replica."

    So to me, honestly, it looked like you were all over the place. Yes, my summary of your positions was sarcastic, and if that qualifies as bullying for you, it was not my intention.

    Let's not also forget what you wrote in response...I won't quote it here, but you and your buddy Fuzzy are very quick to jump on me and others here, while not acknowledging anything in the response you made that may have crossed a line. You are now making a big show of demanding that people are "cordial", without taking any responsibility for the things you have said. It's a bit rich mate...
     
    David J, Eve, Pun and 4 others like this.
  3. Martin_J_N

    Martin_J_N May 22, 2020

    Posts
    751
    Likes
    1,520
    There is no bullying on this thread. Period.
     
  4. Martin_J_N

    Martin_J_N May 22, 2020

    Posts
    751
    Likes
    1,520

    Totally agree.
     
    Pun and BatDad like this.
  5. orlis

    orlis May 22, 2020

    Posts
    320
    Likes
    670
    Archer, with all due respect, but those sentences do not contradict each other. to make it simpler: OP would love to buy a watch that is a faithful replica of original moonwatch that landed on the moon in 1969. if not available (it is not, we all know that, no need to educate here) the OP would like to buy current moonwatch with cal 3861 that we all know will be introduced very soon. Period.
    You can wish for something but ultimately buy something from a different reason.

    ps. i agree bullying is too strong word but I also felt most of the posts here were not fully respectful and trying to understand OP intentions. that's just my 2 cents.
     
  6. Archer

    Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker May 22, 2020

    Posts
    17,442
    Likes
    36,651
    I agree they were not contradictory, and I didn't say they were. It was the fact that he wanted an "upgraded" movement and then dismissed any argument that the 1861 was an upgrade as "irrelevant" that seemed contradictory to me.
     
    Duckie and larryganz like this.
  7. STANDY

    STANDY schizophrenic pizza orderer and watch collector May 22, 2020

    Posts
    11,867
    Likes
    28,201





    Ok I had some posts in the first two pages and got above responses from the first two pages.

    I understand what the OP wants, like many a 321 to go back into the Moonwatch. Not gunna happen as Omega has marketing spin that many have fallen for that they can charge over double for a 321. OMEGA wants the money that they are not making from every 321 vintage sold here and anywhere else.
    1) Watching vintage 321s selling for $50k and not getting a cent. Bingo a 321 in platinum $50k watch
    2) Watching 1969 watches sell for $15k. Bingo a 321 for $15k

    and

    I understand he hates the 861 and 1861 testimony from what’s in the above posts.

    As a owner of 3 watches with 1861s and 1 watch with a 861 I find it hard to understand what the OP has against these movements and why. Because as @Archer has basically said and asked in the way he has been for ever since I have been here is the same as me Why.

    The OP is entitled to not like them. Such is life.

    But to me the 321, 861, 1861 and even the soon to be 3861 there is not really a bees dick between them all as far quality and accuracy

    Also lastly to the person that mentioned about Rolex not having a display back. It’s no a nice and prudy movement like an Omega manual chrono ;)
     
    larryganz and Martin_J_N like this.
  8. Aryen

    Aryen May 22, 2020

    Posts
    72
    Likes
    358
    well that 3861 is supposed to be a METAS certified chronometer?
     
  9. YY77

    YY77 May 22, 2020

    Posts
    527
    Likes
    537
    Yes
     
  10. Archer

    Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker May 22, 2020

    Posts
    17,442
    Likes
    36,651
    Omega has yet to indicate what the timing standards will be on this movement
    .
     
  11. AntonisCy

    AntonisCy May 22, 2020

    Posts
    610
    Likes
    492
    3861 Moonwatches (2 lmited editions) have already been released and yes they are METAS.
     
  12. Evitzee

    Evitzee May 22, 2020

    Posts
    2,161
    Likes
    3,382
    The seven Omega's I have with the Cal 861, 1861 are all pretty average performers, the best I've ever seen is about +2.0 sec per day on one that was professionally timed ex factory, the rest are +6, +8, maybe +10 sec/day when on the wrist. It's ok as far as I'm concerned, I'm not a stickler for the accuracy thing. The METAS Cal 9904 I have is a great performer, about +0.5 to +1.0 sec/day on the wrist, and the METAS Cal 3861 is also stellar at about the same rate. Just on the accuracy front a Cal 3861 is superior. But there are other advantages to the Cal 3861 including a superior power reserve, over 60 hours, and better magnetic resistance, these are real advantages. Personally, if you put away all the contrived romance of the Cal 321 the Cal 3861 is just a better performer in the real world. In my book the Cal 3861 is far superior to the oldy, moldy Cal 321 in practical terms. But romance is a big selling point in the collector world, hence you have $50k platinum and $14k steel reincarnations to satisfy people's emotions. Eventually, probably later this year, we will see the Cal 3861 as the standard movement in the moonwatch at maybe a $1,000 premium to the current Cal 1861. So take your pick, there is a range of movements you can select to power your dream depending on what is important to you.
     
    Edited May 22, 2020
    Om3ga321 likes this.
  13. Archer

    Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker May 22, 2020

    Posts
    17,442
    Likes
    36,651
    Yes, they are Master Chronometers. But please keep in mind that METAS is a standard that fluctuates wildly in terms of what Omega has arranged for the tolerances to be, and that MEATS checks them for. So not all METAS/MC watches have the same accuracy requirements. We simply don't know what the standard is that Omega is holding these to as no tolerances have been published by Omega yet that I have seen.

    Anecdotal evidence is great, but the real meat is in the standards...
     
    AntonisCy likes this.
  14. larryganz

    larryganz The cable guy May 23, 2020

    Posts
    2,762
    Likes
    7,773
    Some of my 861 and 1861 run a bit better than what you stated ( I have 4 total), and here are a couple of examples. I'd agree with Archer though, that the 861 and 1861 were an improvement over the 321 while increasing to 6 ticks per minute for the second hand, and being easier and/or less costly to maintain. The 3861 is a movement that my local watchmaker wont be servicing like he does with my other Moonwatches, and would cost me a lot more to maintain, for a small but noticeable improvement in performance. If they stop making the 1861 in Moonwatches, it wont stop me from buying a new watch, but it wont make me get rid of the older ones.

    (1) My 1976 Speedmaster Pro 145.022 was serviced last August 2019, and it only lost 5 seconds in the first 3 days after service and gained them back over the next 3 days, running +0.08 sec/day average over the first 6 days after service. It ran between -2 to +3 sec/day in that time, but it all averaged out on the wrist.

    (2) My 2013 Speedmaster Pro 3570.50 was serviced at the same time last August as the 861 model, and for the next two weeks after I swapped out from the 145.022, it ran between -1 and +2 sec/day = for a 14 day average of +0.26 sec/day. I then wore the 3570.50 again straight from Dec 2nd thru Dec 27th, and it gained an average of +0.99 sec/day over the 24.6 days while staying -2 to +3 sec/day when I checked it 1-2 times a day.

    (3) My Speedy Tuesday 1 ran +2.8 sec/day over an 18 day period in 2018, but I haven't timed it since.

    (4) My 2005 Speedy 3572.50 ran +3.8 sec/day over a 7 day period, last checked in 2018.

    1976 SPEEDMASTER PRO 145.022 BELOW:
    IMG_6021.png
    IMG_6022.png


    2013 SPEEDMASTER PRO 3570.50 BELOW:

    IMG_6015.png
    IMG_6016.png

    THE 3570.50 TIMING BELOW FOR THE 24 DAYS BETWEEN 12/2/19 AND 12/24/19 = +0.99 SEC/DAY

    IMG_6019.png
    IMG_6020.png
     
    Martin_J_N likes this.
  15. AntonisCy

    AntonisCy May 23, 2020

    Posts
    610
    Likes
    492
    I was just indicating that the movement is already in released models.

    What do you mean that the METAS standard fluctuates? I thought there was a standard deviation just like COSC.
     
  16. Archer

    Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker May 23, 2020

    Posts
    17,442
    Likes
    36,651
    No, that's what I'm saying, it's not all the same for each movement model.

    When Omega only had COSC rated modern watches as their highest standard, the timing tolerances for all of those were the same. COSC requires an average daily rate of between -4 and +6 seconds per day. Omega was a bit tighter and the full requirements were:

    Average daily rate from -1 to +6 seconds per day.
    Max. positional variation (Delta) at full wind of 12 seconds
    Max. Delta at 24 hours after full wind of 15 seconds.
    All measured over 5 positions.

    For the newer certified movements, the standard is not the same for every movement.

    The most accurate requirement is:

    Average daily rate from 0 to +5 seconds per day.
    Max. positional variation (Delta) at full wind of 12 seconds
    Max. Delta at 24 hours after full wind of 15 seconds.
    All measured over 6 positions.

    Some are rated:

    Average daily rate from 0 to +6 seconds per day.
    Max. positional variation (Delta) at full wind of 14 seconds
    Max. Delta at 24 hours after full wind of 16 seconds.
    All measured over 6 positions.

    The worst is rated:

    Average daily rate from 0 to +7 seconds per day.
    Max. positional variation (Delta) at full wind of 16 seconds
    Max. Delta at 24 hours after full wind of 16 seconds.
    All measured over 6 positions.

    Keep in mind that for the watchmaker, the really important measurements are the Deltas, as those are the basis for accuracy. All these watches are measured over 6 positions rather than 5, and in theory the more positions you measure over, the harder it is to keep the Delta small. But in practice when I service I measure all watches I work on over 6 positions, and even for a regular 861/1861 Speedmaster the COSC and METAS numbers are often not difficult to meet.

    Just looking at the last few Speedmasters I serviced, the Delta at full wind was as follows, measured over 6 positions:

    861 - 8.1 seconds
    861 - 7.8 seconds
    861 - 9.1 seconds
    1861 - 12.5 seconds
    911 - 5.9 seconds - this is a Flightmaster movement, but is based on the 861 with some added features

    So getting these movements to meet those standards (or at least get very close) is pretty common.

    Cheers, Al
     
    frazierspa, Duckie, larryganz and 2 others like this.
  17. AntonisCy

    AntonisCy May 23, 2020

    Posts
    610
    Likes
    492
    Thanks for the info Al
     
  18. Duckie

    Duckie May 23, 2020

    Posts
    282
    Likes
    166
    Totally agreed:thumbsup:
    This was assessment.
    I had an occasional look at this thread from the very beginning and whether I'm right or wrong, my impression was this thread was going to end up exactly how it has come to be.
    It seemed to become apparent that the OP had a subconscious bias against the 1861 based on the belief it's inherantly inferior to a column wheel movement(perhaps a cheaped out Chrono as it were).
    It was as if the fact it was never actually worn on the moon vindicates it's status in the OP's mind.
    This is despite the fact a variant of the 861 has logged many more hours in space in total as well as going to the moon.

    I think we all need to remember the well known Speedy is(first and foremost) a classic product of form over function and it's in fact, an overall design which is not defined(as a package) by the movement.
    It could be argued that each and every movement change to the basic Speedy has to date been an upgrade in the broadest sense.
    I fully expect the next movement change to further bolster the great tradition of upgrades to the basic Speedy. The OP will need to simply budget accordingly:thumbsup:
    Personally i can't justify the anticipated price premium:(
     
    Martin_J_N likes this.
  19. Martin_J_N

    Martin_J_N May 24, 2020

    Posts
    751
    Likes
    1,520
    Presume that you are placing the 3861 in the next evolution of the Speedmaster, where do you see Omega pitching this watch price wise compared to the existing 1861 and announced 321 replicas?
     
  20. Duckie

    Duckie May 24, 2020

    Posts
    282
    Likes
    166
    Your presumption is entirely correct.
    Unfortunately I don't have a Crystal ball, however logic would dictate that the price point would or could only ever go up;)
     
    Martin_J_N likes this.