There are a couple of these on C24 now at quite a spread (between £14k and £20k)... aside from RJ and Floatlite who I've spoken to, has anyone had any experience with these? What are peoples general thoughts? I've not held one yet but will get the chance to on Tuesday. Interested to hear from anyone with an opinion. Cheers

 

I have always preferred the twisted lugs, but, still, it is a wonderful rendition of an iconic Speedmaster. Here's are two opposing views, maybe they will help in your decision:

 

Of course they’re a rip-off. What luxury item isn’t? That’s half the fun...

 

I love the straight lugs.
A friend received his the other night and it looks amazing.
It's like wearing my 105.003-64 but brand new.
A vintage Ed White will never look this good and the band is perfect.
Waiting for mine very patiently.

 

I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but, there are some luxury items that aren't a rip-off. Some watches can honestly be considered an investment, think Patek Philippe, think vintage Rolex sport models, think vintage Speedmasters. How much was that Rolex Daytona Paul Newman ref 6263 in 1994? Well take a look...


Sources: https://www.bobswatches.com/paul-newman-rolex-daytona
Patek Philippe

 

what goes up most come down

 

Looks really nice to me. Psycho nitpick, but why did they leave the subdial hand 'nibs' unpainted? Is it to mimic what a used vintage handset looks like? Strange choice.

 

Love this watch, don't love the price. But I get why.

 

It’s funny how I initially preferred the straight legs but over time would rather have a twisted lug. It’s also a unique and defining character of the omega line I feel.

 

Both the 2019 Gold Speedmaster (50 years Apollo 11) and the new 321 "Ed White" are IMHO true tribute chronographs to the spaceflight program
However at that price, I would go for a vintage 1960s "Ed White" ... remember to 100% accurate it needs to be a 105.003-63

 

The problem with this is twofold: 1) It would have taken the equivalent of over $26,000 in today’s dollars to have gotten into the Newman market back then, which is not easy for even dedicated watch collectors; and, 2) we know in hind-sight they were good investments. Until they appreciated so nicely, they were just rip-off luxury goods.

 

Ok, I see your point, but, I think it's best that we agree to disagree. I bought a Rolex 6239 Newman in auction in 1988 for approximately 4k (8500.00 today's dollars) with buyers premium and tax, at the time, I never considered the watch to be a rip-off. In a manner of 4 years the watch more than doubled in value.

I definitely agree hind-sight is always 20-20, but certain watches and certain brands are damn good bets.
Source:https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/reference-points-the-paul-newman-daytona

 

Here’s my point: I, like you, have apparently done well with some of our watches as they have appreciated in value. But, I think you’ll concede that in 1988, or thereabouts, many watches were not yet universally become viewed as good investments, such as traditional investment vehicles like the stock market or real estate, which up until that point had fairly well-charted return statistics.

So, I’m saying you may have hypothesized that they could be good investments, but there was no real history to prove they were good investments, so therefore they were still over-priced luxury objects that we were lucky to have done well with.

 

Yes, I concede that in 1988 I didn't buy watches as an investment and even today I generally don't buy watches as an investment vehicle. But, and maybe I can get you to agree, not all luxury items are over-priced rip offs. Some luxury items are simply better made and will last years if not decades longer then cheaper brands and they hold their value or appreciate, whether it be watches, purses, glass frames, etc. Note, I said, "some", because there are plenty of luxury items that are rip offs.
Now, we can go get a drink... what do you say?

 

Someone on the internet fixed it...