Hi all,

Can anyone tell me what the difference between the Mk 4 and Mk 4.5 Speedmasters is? What is the correct bracelet reference for these? Are spare links available for these bracelets? As usual your thoughts would be much appreciated.

Regards

CS

 

Hi CS, All you need to know is on this website http://chronomaddox.com/c1045_in_detail.html

bracelet for mk 4.5 is 1162/172 i believe ( and it is on mine)

mk 4.5 are still underrated in my opinion, and sell normally between £500-1000 on the ebay, but most are heavily polished.

The movement is also a plain jane, and nothing special to look at, but the late great Chuck Maddox was a big fan of these, largely indestructable, relaible movements.

But beware if you havent seen these live - these are huge hunks of a watch, very heavy and thick.

cheers, Paul

 

Thanks guys,

Chuck seems to have agreed that these are under valued. The Lemania 5100 has a bit of a cult following in some circles so I'm keen to try one.

The size should be ok I think but they are tall aren't they. Offrei has the whole bracelet but not sure about the links yet. I'll try watchco as well I guess.

I am in the process of trying to get the movement pics etc right now. I do know the chronograph functions exactly as it should but am still uncertain when it had its last service. I should know tomorrow.

Your input is much appreciated

CS

 

I'd be interested to hear more about this, are they a Seadmaster then?

 

The cases are the same, but unless I am missing something, the Mark IV uses the Lemania 5100 (Omega 1045) and the Mark 4.5 (176.009) uses the Lemania 1340/1341 (Omega 1040), two very different movements. Both are superior, high quality movements and both are extremely durable, but each accomplishes its job quite differently.

The Mark 4.5 case is indeed heavy and somewhat thick. I found the Omega bracelet too light for it: The head seemed to flop around too much for my preference, but then again, I have a narrow wrist. I know of many people who love it. I found the 176.009 to be a bit dull to look at and just too heavy to enjoy.

Best of luck!

 

Nope, you are wrong - you have it the wrong way round. The mark 4.5, is case reference 176.0012, cal 1045( aka lemania 5100), and the mk 4 has the c 1040, 176.009

cheers, paul

 

Can I ask why these are considered to be such good movements by collectors? Not trying to be cheeky but this has always puzzled me.

Cheers, Al

 

For me it's about the different watches that used the movement. Some of them are seriously cool IMHO but there are those who absolutely love them including Chuck Maddox.

Can I ask from a watch makers point of view what your opinion of them is please Al? Are they difficult to service or prone to any certain parts wearing? I am genuinely interested as the one I am looking at has not been serviced for at least 3 years and probably much longer.

Thanks

CS

 

That makes sense, no wonder I couldn't see anything about Mk IV and Mk 4.5 in Chucks blog. They have different movements and the blog is about the Cal 1045 Speedys only. Thanks for clearing that up for me

 

I don't get these in often for servicing, and I'm actually okay with that.

The 1040 is a different animal than the 1045, and I have less "problems" with it as a movement. It does not have the same issues with materials that the 5100 does, so I am inclined to say it's a better made movement, although it does have it's quirks. So my main question was about the 1045, or 5100....

The Lemania 5100 not really what I would consider a "high end" movement. They might be robust, but the 5100 is full of plastic parts, and this is not usually what is associated with a top notch movement. It looks and feels "cheap" to work on compared to many other movements. I would even prefer working on a Seiko 6139 to one of these to be honest. If a brass plate is worn or damaged you can often turn a bushing and repair the hole or something, but this really isn't possible with the plastic bits inside the 5100.

I know several fellow watchmakers who have stated to me that they won't touch these. The layout is completely different to most chronographs, with the chronograph parts buried on the dial side under many other parts.

Some photos to illustrate the 5100's construction:







The last photo is a part that I think costs something like $250 to buy if needed from Omega (the last price I got for this part last year anyway) so if this is toast, it's not an inexpensive fix.

Anyway, I have often heard people love these and I wondered if it was more about the functionality with the central minute counter, or if people really liked the plastic parts inside these for some reason.

They don't require any special attention compared to any other movement, and I think because they are so unusual some watchmakers are a little afraid to work on them. I have something like 10 Speedmasters in the shop right now, and the 321/861/1861/1866 movement is something I am really familiar with, so when a 5100 comes to me I will say although I will service it and have not had any really specific problems, I don't really look forward to it.

Anyway, just rambling thoughts from me on a Sunday....

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks so much for the reply Al.

It is always invaluable to have the input of someone who knows these movements intimately. Is that last pic of the Date Indicator Support Mechanism by any chance? I have heard it is hard to find as well as expensive.

Interestingly the pics of the movement on Rannft don't look like they have so much plastic or is it just that it's not blue plastic?
http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&0&2uswk&Omega_1045

I have to say I am a little nervous now.

 

The movement is the same as on Ranfft except the plastic bits are grey instead of blue - the one I showed was from a Fortis, so not from Omega. Fig 3 on that site shows the "support for date indicator mechanism" mounted and it's difficult to see but it's there - clear plastic. The chronograph parts are under that plastic plate.

Omega does still supply this part (at least they did as of last year), but for how long I have no idea.

Not meaning to make you nervous about it at all, so don't be. I'm just always curious why this movement has the following it does.

Cheers, Al

 

I see what you mean now. I know that the watch is keeping good time and the chronograph functions and resets exactly how it should so it shouldn't need that part replaced should it? Does all that plastic require oiling like metal does?

For me it's the central minutes hand and the 24hr dual time in conjunction with the package it's wrapped up in and hearing from many that they are robust. I'm also curious to see why they have the following they do myself.

 

That is a staggering cost for a piece of plastic - several times its weight in gold and at least gold doesn't get brittle with age.

It makes me glad that the one I'm waiting to arrive is a 1040.

 

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there Ash. That is a nice summation.

Agreed sir, it is hard to beat your comparison. I have to wonder if Sinn or Tutima charge anywhere near as much for the same part? For that matter, if they are still being produced to this day, why are parts hard to obtain in the first place?

 

Thanks for that - it helps explain the draw to them I guess. On the vertical clutch, I mentioned the Seiko 6139 above for that reason - it is certainly the least expensive vertical clutch chronograph you can buy, and it's not full of plastic either...oh and it was "the" first as well....Seiko deserves a lot of credit for that movement.

Vertical clutch chronographs are quite different to a horizontally coupled chronograph, and yes they have less wear when running than the traditional types do. I can make a post explaining how they differ if you like, but it might be a while....

Cheers, Al