- Posts
- 108
- Likes
- 81
OMEGA 1957 Trilogy Limited Editions - Railmaster, Seamaster 300, Speedmaster’57
- Posts
- 62
- Likes
- 94
- Posts
- 1,554
- Likes
- 3,651
Seaborg
·In love with my Seamaster 🥰
- Posts
- 1,438
- Likes
- 2,213
scapa
·I've joined the club -- my AD had this in the vault during their September sales, brand-new full set with warranty. Love at first wear for me.
I've spent a lot of time on this thread. Thanks all for the info and insight on these stunning pieces.
I've spent a lot of time on this thread. Thanks all for the info and insight on these stunning pieces.
- Posts
- 1,150
- Likes
- 19,998
- Posts
- 1,438
- Likes
- 2,213
- Posts
- 531
- Likes
- 2,099
Severin
·I now join the ranks:
- Posts
- 3,360
- Likes
- 6,499
fskywalker
·Can an owner of the Seamaster 60th confirm the watch lug to lug size in millimeters (equivalent to the 48mm measurement on the speedmaster below)
Thanks
Thanks
- Posts
- 73
- Likes
- 204
Stevedssd
·It's the same as the Moonwatch 48mm. Scroll down to "On the wrist" in this great Fratello review.
https://www.fratellowatches.com/omega-speedmaster-311-10-39-30-01-001-review/
https://www.fratellowatches.com/omega-speedmaster-311-10-39-30-01-001-review/
- Posts
- 3,360
- Likes
- 6,499
fskywalker
·It's the same as the Moonwatch 48mm. Scroll down to "On the wrist" in this great Fratello review.
https://www.fratellowatches.com/omega-speedmaster-311-10-39-30-01-001-review/
Thanks for the information 👍, but that article refers to the Speedmaster 60th and was looking for the size of the Seamaster 60th. An owner of a Seamaster 60th already confirmed me the information that it is 48mm as well.
- Posts
- 73
- Likes
- 204
Stevedssd
·Thanks for the information 👍, but that article refers to the Speedmaster 60th and was looking for the size of the Seamaster 60th. An owner of a Seamaster 60th already confirmed me the information that it is 48mm as well.
- Posts
- 1,150
- Likes
- 19,998
Mach
·With my rudimentary measurement, it’s 48mm:
- Posts
- 1,294
- Likes
- 1,808
DIV
·
...I just wanted to announce that prior to my Railmaster Trilogy returning from service, I decided to sell my Rolex Explorer 214270 and I have no regrets and don’t miss the Explorer. I do think I would have been very regretful if it was the other way around...even with the long lug-to-lug the RM fits my wrist better than the very “bold” proportions of the 39mm Explorer. I was and still am interested in the older 36mm versions, but can’t justify the prices they are commanding compared to the value of my beloved Railmaster.
My biggest complaint right now (especially with the brand new case and bezel) is how shiny it is. I will rectify that by pledging to wear it exclusively for the next year or so!
Edited:
- Posts
- 368
- Likes
- 452
rainking
·Totally different subject here, but for the sake of keeping this great thread alive...
...I just wanted to announce that prior to my Railmaster Trilogy returning from service, I decided to sell my Rolex Explorer 214270 and I have no regrets and don’t miss the Explorer. I do think I would have been very regretful if it was the other way around...even with the long lug-to-lug the RM fits my wrist better than the very “bold” proportions of the 39mm Explorer. I was and still am interested in the older 36mm versions, but can’t justify the prices they are commanding compared to the value of my beloved Railmaster.
My biggest complaint right now (especially with the brand new case and bezel) is how shiny it is. I will rectify that by pledging to wear it exclusively for the next year or so!
- Posts
- 8,742
- Likes
- 69,435
Darlinboy
··Pratts! Will I B******S!!!Gratuitous photo of the Seamaster 300 trilogy.
For me wears much better than my now-departed Seamaster Master Coaxial, which sat up very high and just felt huge.
For me wears much better than my now-departed Seamaster Master Coaxial, which sat up very high and just felt huge.
- Posts
- 1,150
- Likes
- 19,998
- Posts
- 1,294
- Likes
- 1,808
DIV
·IN DEFENSE OF THE RAILMASTER'S NON-SCREW-DOWN CROWN: Keep in mind that the original Railmaster 2914 was MANUAL WIND without a screw-down. So the new Trilogy RM is similar in function to the original---I find myself winding the crown every now and then just for fun giving the same feel of use as an vintage model which would be different if the crown was a screw-down.
- Posts
- 275
- Likes
- 1,408
Mtnmansa
·
- Posts
- 12,100
- Likes
- 40,205
abrod520
·IN DEFENSE OF THE RAILMASTER'S NON-SCREW-DOWN CROWN: Keep in mind that the original Railmaster 2914 was MANUAL WIND without a screw-down. So the new Trilogy RM is similar in function to the original---I find myself winding the crown every now and then just for fun giving the same feel of use as an vintage model which would be different if the crown was a screw-down.
I don't think I'd heard it was non-screw-down before, but I'm really glad it is.
I have a daydream about taking one of these Railmasters and fitting in the manual-wind movement from the Hamilton Khaki Field Mechanical - they're both Swatch Group parts so IMO Omega really should have used that for the Railmaster. I don't nearly have the fabrication skills required for that though but maybe someday if I have tons of money to waste, I'll ask someone to do it.
- Posts
- 1,294
- Likes
- 1,808
DIV
·I don't think I'd heard it was non-screw-down before, but I'm really glad it is.
I have a daydream about taking one of these Railmasters and fitting in the manual-wind movement from the Hamilton Khaki Field Mechanical - they're both Swatch Group parts so IMO Omega really should have used that for the Railmaster. I don't nearly have the fabrication skills required for that though but maybe someday if I have tons of money to waste, I'll ask someone to do it.
I used to protest about how the Railmaster Trilogy should have been a manual wind movemen like the original, but then I thought about it more and stopped complaining because of the following:
1) Omega was able to install a state of the art automatic A-magnetic movement without changing the original dimensions of the Railmaster
2) as much as I would like to manually wind my Railmaster everyday, I do admit that an automatic movement is always more convenient because...we occasionally forget!
3) Correct me if I'm wrong (please do!), an automatic movement is usually more accurate when compared to a similar movement without a rotor, and the dead-on accuracy of this watch is one of amazing characteristics---and to your suggestion...I'm not sure that fitting the RM with a Hamilton Khaki manual movement is worth it's merits....and like I said, if you want to wind it manually, go for it!...you certainly can power the mainspring by winding the crown, you just don't NEED to!
4) Finally, I cannot help but think that if Omega could have fit an automatic movement in there in 1957, they most certainly would have done so...after all, this is a professional, "Master" level watch. But since they needed to make room for the soft iron Faraday shield to achieve anti-magnetism, they didn't want the watch to be so thick and top heavy, so they decided to do away with the self-winding rotor.
So in 2017 when they had achieved the 8806 automatic movement that can withstand 15,000 gauss without the need for Faraday shielding, they accomplished something closer to the original intention with the Railmaster in a reasonably compact case design.
Similar threads
- Posts
- 4
- Views
- 2K
- Posts
- 16
- Views
- 12K
- Posts
- 0
- Views
- 3K
- Posts
- 0
- Views
- 3K
- Posts
- 0
- Views
- 3K