- Posts
- 21
- Likes
- 28
Mathew J
·"For all manned space missions", indeed. But what caught my attention was this "in 1965". Perhaps the "leak", which had "human" on the caseback was intentional. Get everybody worked up about human vs manned and let Omega get the attention away from "in 1965". Which brings us to the question - why "in 1965"? Logic answer would be that there is no NASA flight qualification for the new 3861. Or perhaps Omega would like to argue that "in 1965" was only added to keep "manned" (logic there would be that when qualified in 1965, then at that point "manned space missions" was the official term, i.e. Omega is using period correct wording)?
I was thinking the same thing, either to test the water to see how that kind of a change would go, or as you said get folks worked up so they scoop up old stock in advance of the new model. I'd figure more of the latter and would guess that it worked as I got one, not just about the caseback change but because I wanted the current and what I consider more classic piece.
I am glad they kept period correct terminology for the caseback, but the addition of the date just seems odd, I can only figure it was done to balance out the spacing of the text on the back. Someone said "human" was the current terminology according to the NASA style guide, you could be right though in that by their adding the date NASA was ok with them using the older terminology, but I wonder how much say NASA even has or cares or if its more of a courtesy thing.
