I had been meaning to start a conversation about Omega movements for a while, but today’s announcement makes the conversation even more interesting: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/o...lo-11-anniversary-limited-edition-introducing

The 50th anniversary speedmaster has a heavily modified 1861 (or 1863?) movement, complete with silicon hair-spring, metas certification and coaxial escapement.

I had been wondering since the announcement of the new METAS movements what it would take for Omega to retrofit a silicon hairspring into the speedmaster movement. Other manufacturers have shown this can be done. Omega actually went further and added a coaxial escapement too, mixing history and modernity in an interesting way. In some ways the historical significance of the speedmaster has paralyzed Omega, and it hasn’t dared do the iterations on it the way Rolex has on the Submariner and the Daytona, but it now seems they have found the way forward (to be confirmed):

- A historically correct 321 variant for the purists
- A modernized iteration to bring all the benefits of newer technology while staying true to the original (hopefully a stainless steel version of what was announced today)
- a modern take that they have more liberty on, where they can experiment and take risks without diluting the myth : the xSOTM watches complete with fully in house movement and modern esthetic. These are the offshores to Omega’s royal oak.

Now on to some questions:

Why not fit this new movement with a column wheel? Arguably the modifications are in the spirit of the 321 -> 861 transition, all about making the movement more robust. Is that the spirit behind it? Or for more differentiation with the 321?

What are the next steps for Omega?

Arguably the biggest shortcomings of Omega’s current line are two fold:

- case thickness. I’m not sure if this is tied to the 8900 movement, but it certainly looks this way. Throughout the seamaster line, 8900 watches have gained thickness, sometimes to a fault. Given the renewed enthusiasm for vintage proportions on watches like the BB58 (for which Tudor actually introduced a new movement), it seems Omega is missing something here
- power reserve. This will be controversial, but the 8900 has a twin barrel and tops out at 60h. The Geneva brand that shall remain nameless has now standardized single barrel 70h movements, including in the diminutive BB58.

I read here, from our resident expert @Archer I believe (please correct me if I’m wrong), that the 8900 architecturally is very “inspired” by the competition’s workhorse. @Archer, could you elaborate on that? As an engineer I would love to understand more here.

Is the 8900 capable of being reduced in both diameter and thickness the way Tudor did for the BB58? Can it’s power reserve be updated?

Why does 70h vs 60h matter, you ask? 70hs allow you to put your watch down on Friday evening, and pick it up on Monday morning without losing a beat. Technically 60h allow that too, but with less margin... and to my untrained eye, the double barrel design limits flexibility in terms of size.

The Aqua Terra line especially would benefit from diminished thickness. A 38mm bond, or a 38mm planet ocean with proportionate thickness would also be killer and give Omega more options going forward.

Or am I crazy and is the 8900 what Omega needs to build the future?

 

Mmm, looks like perhaps this was taken the wrong way : by no means was this a Rolex fanboy post, in fact if you look at my post history and watch collection (and avatar!) you’ll see I have a lifelong attachment to Omega. I was just trying to get a discussion going on the technical implications of the 3861, and other avenues Omega might be exploring given that strategical direction.

No takers? I’ll say this: the investment in the 3861 shows to me that the leadership is making a conscious effort to invest in substance , and not just heritage and limited editions. Which makes me hopeful for Basel (or whatever the swatch group show is this year) and the future generally.

 

It's simply becoming more apparent that there will be 2 movements going forward.
The 3861 and any variants of it will likely be for the main stream Moonwatch models.

And the 321 reserved for the truest style to the original of the Moonwatches. Probably low volume limited editions/reiissues.

 

No, it's just that it looks like people are making threads about very similar topics instead of replying to one central thread, that's all...also the fact that this is, for some members, more than their share of WUS-type material. At least that's what I'm inclined to guess.

 

My point was it’s been covered as nasuem in the post made before yours. And the 2 others before that, and the 10 over the past 6 months.