Forums Latest Members

lapse of memory....is the mvmt. ring the same for 321/861 speedy ?

  1. watchyouwant ΩF Clairvoyant Nov 29, 2014

    Posts
    5,121
    Likes
    8,623
    kind regards. achim
     
  2. JohnSteed Nov 29, 2014

    Posts
    4,402
    Likes
    5,762
    Think it's different ( if you mean spacer ?)
     
  3. pascs Nov 29, 2014

    Posts
    1,634
    Likes
    5,657
    I thought the height was slightly different but I just checked a spare spacer ring I have and it seems to be the same height as the 321 and when you buy a new one they are the same part for 321 or 861 ::confused2::

    The design of the original 321 is a little different around the hole for the stem and pushers but presumably an 861 spacer ring will fit a 321
     
    Edited Nov 29, 2014
  4. watchyouwant ΩF Clairvoyant Nov 29, 2014

    Posts
    5,121
    Likes
    8,623
    thanks,guys ! kind regards. achim
     
  5. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Nov 29, 2014

    Posts
    26,337
    Likes
    65,031
    Not the same...the enlargement ring (movement spacer) for the Cal. 321 has drilled through holes for the pushers and stem, and the one for the 861/1861 has slots. I've never taken measurements because the one for the 861/861 really won't work on the 321 due to the design of the part called the "pusher stem for zero action" as the traditional design on these requires this part to be constrained by that drilled hole - the one with the slot will cause you difficulties.

    Cheers, Al
     
    watchyouwant likes this.
  6. pascs Nov 29, 2014

    Posts
    1,634
    Likes
    5,657
    I looked on cousins site and it gave the 861 part for the 145.012 case so I'd assumed it must be ok for a 321 but obviously not, thanks Al
     
  7. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Nov 29, 2014

    Posts
    26,337
    Likes
    65,031
    Try searching for 1450012 instead. Assuming that the Cousins site uses the current Omega numbering system, you have actually searched on the wrong case reference.

    This is where the numbering system is a little odd, and the move from 6 digits to 7 causes confusion for those who don't have experience with the system. If I search on 145012 on the Omega Extranet, it brings up a case for a Cal 861 watch - actually the case it brings up is 1450122. To get the 321 case, I have to search on 1450012.

    So the enlargement ring for for 145012(2) reference (the Cal. 861 watch) is 079LC0861C.

    The enlargement ring for the 1450012 (the Cal. 321 watch) is 079LC032100.

    Being able to search doesn't always give you the answers you need, and some knowledge of how these numbering systems work is required. This is why when people ask me about a case part, I need as much information as they can give me, because the 6 digit number most people quote as the case reference is really only a partial reference. Sometimes using just 6 digits will bring up many results with watches using different movements even.

    So when people quote a case reference like 145.012 (referring to the 321 watch), what they really are asking about is 055ST1450012 - that is a full case reference number.

    The 6 digits don't take into account things like case material - materials like stainless, TI, solid gold, gold plated, gold capped, gold filled, and then there is white gold, yellow gold, pink gold...well you get the picture I hope...

    Cheers, Al
     
  8. Spacefruit Prolific Speedmaster Hoarder Nov 29, 2014

    Posts
    5,189
    Likes
    22,927
    That's what I was waiting for.

    Thanks Al.

    The fact is that I have received several 321's with slotted rings, which made me think they were interchangeable and therefore acceptable.

    It would appear that there are many people working on these watches who consider the slotted ring acceptable on a 321.
     
  9. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Nov 29, 2014

    Posts
    26,337
    Likes
    65,031
    Well I'll just clarify a couple of things...

    Here are two versions of the pusher stem for zero action:

    [​IMG]

    The top one is typically what you see on a Cal. 321, and with this style, you need the full diameter hole to keep this part in place correctly. The slot would allow it to flop around and disengage from the hour hammer operating lever. The style of pusher stem for zero action that is used in the modern watches is at the bottom of this photo and does not flop around, so the slotted style ring works fine.

    Now it might be possible to install the modern type on a 321 and make the slotted spacer work, but it's not something I have tried.

    Cheers, Al
     
    KLXN, Spacefruit and watchyouwant like this.
  10. Spacefruit Prolific Speedmaster Hoarder Nov 30, 2014

    Posts
    5,189
    Likes
    22,927
    So...is this ring slotted, and therefor incorrect for a 321?
    PB300010-002.jpg
     
  11. pascs Nov 30, 2014

    Posts
    1,634
    Likes
    5,657
    I believe that is correct for a 321, its the other side of the movement ring which is open on the 861. This one has the 'step' where the pin for the pusher comes through (and metal below it), on an 861 ring the hole is the same size all the way through, also on an 861 there is another square hole below the lower pusher too
     
  12. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Nov 30, 2014

    Posts
    26,337
    Likes
    65,031
    Picture = 1000 words....

    [​IMG]

    Cheers, Al
     
    Gefa, OneTwo, KLXN and 4 others like this.