Moonwatch only question

Posts
136
Likes
556
Hi all,

just received my copy of the great book: moonwatch only (3rd Edition).
Only started to get fascinated by omega and the moonwatch story recently and wanted to know more. So the book is definitely helping me on where to start my moonwatch hunt.

I recently bought a Dark Side of The Moon and was a bit disappointed it was not featured in the book even though the Apollo 8 version is.
Does anyone know why it’s not in there? Is it because it’s not using the traditional manual movement? Or are there other drivers?

Cheers
 
Posts
266
Likes
390
I dont know - others I am sure will - but just commenting to say...that is one handsome watch...congratulations - it really looks the business!
 
Posts
5,342
Likes
24,414
Becuase your watch, though lovely, is not a Moonwatch.

::stirthepot::🍿
 
Posts
6,911
Likes
12,719
Moonwatch Only is about pure manual winding Speedmaster chronographs !
Your DSOTM is an automatic movement with a rotor, a half-circular weight that is mounted on the movement and rotates as You move Your arm !
📖
By the way, the Dark Side of the Moon moves constantly, as each part on Earth's natural satellite, the Moon, is either 14 days in darkness or 14 days in full Sunlight ...
 
Posts
136
Likes
556
Becuase your watch, though lovely, is not a Moonwatch.

::stirthepot::🍿
If I remember correctly, Omega did display the DSOTM under their moonwatch section on the previous version of their website. But oh well, another reason to buy a real moonwatch now 😉
 
Posts
50
Likes
108
I too recently got into the Moonwatches and what a rabbit hole it has been (in a good way!) As someone who refused to pay for textbooks in university it's hard to swallow the price of the book, but when compared to the pieces we acquire in this hobby it becomes a little more justifiable 😉 Excited to pick up a copy to read over the holidays.

Enjoy your DSOTM!
 
Posts
10,558
Likes
16,497
Becuase your watch, though lovely, is not a Moonwatch.

::stirthepot::🍿
While I fully agree, the Mothership does like to play fast and loose with its halo marketing so you can't blame a newcomer to the brand for being confused. The FOIS is labelled similarly on the current site. It doesn't make them right though!

 
Posts
51
Likes
410
Hi everybody, I’m sorry if I didn’t read this question before and my answer is late.

The reason is very simple: as we explained in the introduction of our book, we needed to define a strict perimeter for the models, otherwise it would have been too large and too difficult. So we decided to exclude 1) quartz and self-winding movements and 2) different case shapes.

So the question was not to say if the DSOTM (beautiful watch!) was a Moonwatch or not, but more to define logical criterias to manage the perimeter of the book.
 
Posts
266
Likes
390
I would disagree with perhaps most inc. the author...

The DSOTM, FOIS and many other are Moonwatches...period - they are manufactured by Omega and marketed as Moonwatches so simply that's what they are, just the same as if they were called SpiderMan watches, they would be SpiderMan watches irrespective of whether they were worn by SpiderMan...it's what the creators call them and sell them as - I accept a lot if is down to the economics as they would sell more of them if the are labelled Moonwatch than they would if they were marketed as a Dark Chronograph named Peter Piper...

The fact that they or a similar watch didn't go to the Moon is important, but the label Moonwatch has been liberally used by Omega and so that ship has sailed - you can however say this (DSOTM or FOIS or others) are not watches worn on the moon, but they are Moonwatches in terms of their model name.
 
Posts
51
Likes
410
I would disagree with perhaps most inc. the author...

The DSOTM, FOIS and many other are Moonwatches...period - they are manufactured by Omega and marketed as Moonwatches so simply that's what they are, just the same as if they were called SpiderMan watches, they would be SpiderMan watches irrespective of whether they were worn by SpiderMan...it's what the creators call them and sell them as - I accept a lot if is down to the economics as they would sell more of them if the are labelled Moonwatch than they would if they were marketed as a Dark Chronograph named Peter Piper...

The fact that they or a similar watch didn't go to the Moon is important, but the label Moonwatch has been liberally used by Omega and so that ship has sailed - you can however say this (DSOTM or FOIS or others) are not watches worn on the moon, but they are Moonwatches in terms of their model name.

Please read carefully what I said...: our point was not to say if it was a Moonwatch or not, but only to define criterias for the perimeter of our book. One of these criterias was to exclude self-winding calibers.
 
Posts
266
Likes
390
Please read carefully what I said...: our point was not to say if it was a Moonwatch or not, but only to define criterias for the perimeter of our book. One of these criterias was to exclude self-winding calibers.

I do fully understand your point and what the book covers and doesn't cover and that you criteria was manual wind etc... - it is not that which I am commenting on, it is more the other comments stating that the DSOTM and others are not Moonwatches - plus my comments are just my opinion, doesn't make me right (except in my eyes)...

Congrats on a great book though.
 
Posts
10,558
Likes
16,497
I would disagree with perhaps most inc. the author...

The DSOTM, FOIS and many other are Moonwatches...period - they are manufactured by Omega and marketed as Moonwatches so simply that's what they are, just the same as if they were called SpiderMan watches, they would be SpiderMan watches irrespective of whether they were worn by SpiderMan...it's what the creators call them and sell them as - I accept a lot if is down to the economics as they would sell more of them if the are labelled Moonwatch than they would if they were marketed as a Dark Chronograph named Peter Piper...

The fact that they or a similar watch didn't go to the Moon is important, but the label Moonwatch has been liberally used by Omega and so that ship has sailed - you can however say this (DSOTM or FOIS or others) are not watches worn on the moon, but they are Moonwatches in terms of their model name.

The thing is they don’t use it consistently. If you click through to the specific model page you won’t see the MW word used anywhere to describe the DSOM, so you are both right and wrong. It’s like they sprinkle MW marketing fairly dust on every full size chronograph at the macro level, perhaps as a click bait technique but then it evaporates as you click through.

Schroedinger’s Moonwatch...
Edited:
 
Posts
10,558
Likes
16,497
Perhaps one could ask William why he draws the line at Moonwatches when the website is called Speedmaster101.

Maybe Moonwatch101 was taken 😉 ::stirthepot::
 
Posts
51
Likes
410
I don’t really see the inportance of the « Moonwatch label » here... the important thing is that it truly is an amazing watch!
 
Posts
4,704
Likes
17,826
I don’t really see the inportance of the « Moonwatch label » here... the important thing is that it truly is an amazing watch!

It still gets my vote :0)
 
Posts
5,342
Likes
24,414
Perhaps one could ask William why he draws the line at Moonwatches when the website is called Speedmaster101.

Maybe Moonwatch101 was taken 😉 ::stirthepot::

well thanks, that just cost me another £30....(before some other clown gets it...)

www.moonwatch101.com

my cut off of 1978 was because it was the last year Omega put the date in the case back - which made referring to them easy.
I.e. “that’s a -71” compared to the rather general and broader terms for the 80’s and later models.

second the pre 1978 appeared more interesting to me, in terms of patination and appearance.

lastly, when I started, a moon watch was a third to a half the price of a new one, and the later watch pool was polluted by too many limited editions (for me, again, just my opinion).

fine watches all, but I needed to focus myself or I would be broke and not have any cupboard space as it would be full of those ridiculous oversize boxes.

And Mrs Fruit would not have any space for Shoes.
Edited:
 
Posts
10,558
Likes
16,497
well thanks, that just cost me another £30....(before some other clown gets it...)

www.moonwatch101.com

my cut off of 1978 was because it was the last year Omega put the date in the case back - which made referring to them easy.
I.e. “that’s a -71” compared to the rather general and broader terms for the 80’s and later models.

second the pre 1978 appeared more interesting to me, in terms of patination and appearance.

lastly, when I started, a moon watch was a third to a half the price of a new one, and the later watch pool was polluted by too many limited editions (for me, again, just my opinion).

fine watches all, but I needed to focus myself or I would be broke and not have any cupboard space as it would be full of those ridiculous oversize boxes.

And Mrs Fruit would not have any space for Shoes.

Oh, me and my big mouth!

I love the link. It features a Speedmaster I've not seen featured on here before lol
 
Posts
5,342
Likes
24,414
Oh, me and my big mouth!

I love the link. It features a Speedmaster I've not seen featured on here before lol


Well the internet clowns have diverted it....lets have a look

Oops my fault as usual, forgot the 101 in the link.

Its too early here.