Omega Beta 21: Battery retaining prong/screw has extra spacer!!

Dualmonitors · May 20, 2019

Dear All:

I just received an Omega Beta 21 in seemingly great condition, but upon opening the case back, besides the gasket having turned to goo, the battery retaining prong and screw has an extra spacer!

The battery that was in the watch was an Energizer 357/303, which is NOT the current correct replacement battery for this movement, according to Omega. The Renata 386 is the proper replacement.

The Energizer 357 which is in my Beta 21 is thicker than the correct Renata 386 battery.

I thought that i'd just take out the incorrect battery Energizer 357 and put in the correct Renata 386 and i should be fine. Wrong! Upon taking out the Energizer 357, i put in the Renata 386, only to discover that even screwing the battery retaining prong's screw all the way in, the prong was much too high, i.e. away from the battery's + surface. Upon closer inspection, there is a spacer(!) in the screw! (Pictures attached)

I thought that this could not be correct as Omega's own service pages said Renata 386 is the correct replacement battery.

the Energizer 357 is thicker, so the spacer made that work.

while the spacer has the same copper color as the battery retaining prong and the screw and thus looks "original", i am guessing that it couldn't have been original and that someone had added the spacer in.

may i please ask the good folks here if that is true please? What should i do?

@Tom Dick , et al: I would be most grateful for any knowledge, advice, if you don't mind.

Thank you.

webvan · May 20, 2019

The 357 is in fact the correct battery for the Omega 1300 movements. Anyway it's just a capacity/thickness issue, voltage is identical.

Dualmonitors · May 20, 2019

@webvan: thank you kindly for your comment.

i looked it up to the extent possible online and found this internal Omega manual for watchmakers (please see attachment below).

it clearly says that for Calibre 1300, the old battery was the 354 Renata, and the current Silver Oxide replacement is the 386 Renata.

Ideally, if another kind reader of this forum who owns an Omega Beta 21 might kindly look at their battery retaining prong and its screw, and see if under the prong (as picture in my earlier post above), they also have such a spacer or no spacer?

the other issue: the additional height of the 357 Renata over and above the height of the officially recommended Renata 386, might just touch the case back! That might introduce a serious short circuit.

Hopefully, others with the Omega Beta 21 might look at their battery retaining prongs and see whether or not they have a spacer.

Thank you so much!

webvan · May 20, 2019

I own two 1300s and both came with and take the 357 battery. My 1301 on the other hand takes the 386.

JackDaniels83 · May 21, 2019

There are battery retainers in two different heights. The correct retainer and the according battery only depends on the case style. High retainer: Renata 357, low profile retainer: Renata 386. This rule is applicable for all Beta 21 movements, no matter what manufacturer it was used by.

Archer · May 21, 2019

JackDaniels83
There are battery retainers in two different heights. The correct retainer and the according battery only depends on the case style. High retainer: Renata 357, low profile retainer: Renata 386. This rule is applicable for all Beta 21 movements, no matter what manufacturer it was used by.

Indeed batteries are determined by both movement and case...

Uscjake87 · May 21, 2019

On a slightly related note: I still dont understand the difference between caliber 1300 and 1301 besides the stem position. The crazywatches site mentions cosmetic upgrades on the 1301 page. Was this Omega's way of simply differentiating the 9 o clock and 3 o clock crown?

webvan · May 21, 2019

Wasn't the story with the 9 o'clock crown that it was so accurate you would never need to use it to set the watch? It's a right pain to change the date though, on the 1301 as well!

Dualmonitors · May 21, 2019

Re: the date change --

is there any truth to the commonly written comment that one should NOT use the "push crown down and rotate the crown while keep the crown pressed" date change method?

people have written about that and said this "press crown down..." date change method strips the plastic date wheels often. with the plastic date wheels not easy to find/buy, people have said that we ought to merely use the slow method, just adjust the time many many days until you reach the right date.

is there any truth to this please? Thank you.

Uscjake87 · May 21, 2019

Metal date wheels are available that address the weak plastic teeth issue. I am curious about the method you describe on how to change the date.

Dualmonitors · May 21, 2019

may i ask where might one buy a metal date wheel that is the required red background with white numbers please?

thank you.

Uscjake87 · May 21, 2019

This seller has some. I don't know the seller and the quality of the product.

JackDaniels83 · May 21, 2019

First: The plastic date discs are only damaged when using the fast corrector while the date mechanism is also in contact with the disc. Do not change the date between 18:00 and 6:00 o'clock and everything should be OK.

Second: I know the quality of the linked discs above. They are made in Germany and printed in Switzerland.

ccue888 · Feb 21, 2023

D Dualmonitors
Dear All:

I just received an Omega Beta 21 in seemingly great condition, but upon opening the case back, besides the gasket having turned to goo, the battery retaining prong and screw has an extra spacer!

The battery that was in the watch was an Energizer 357/303, which is NOT the current correct replacement battery for this movement, according to Omega. The Renata 386 is the proper replacement.

The Energizer 357 which is in my Beta 21 is thicker than the correct Renata 386 battery.

I thought that i'd just take out the incorrect battery Energizer 357 and put in the correct Renata 386 and i should be fine. Wrong! Upon taking out the Energizer 357, i put in the Renata 386, only to discover that even screwing the battery retaining prong's screw all the way in, the prong was much too high, i.e. away from the battery's + surface. Upon closer inspection, there is a spacer(!) in the screw! (Pictures attached)

I thought that this could not be correct as Omega's own service pages said Renata 386 is the correct replacement battery.

the Energizer 357 is thicker, so the spacer made that work.

while the spacer has the same copper color as the battery retaining prong and the screw and thus looks "original", i am guessing that it couldn't have been original and that someone had added the spacer in.

may i please ask the good folks here if that is true please? What should i do?

@Tom Dick , et al: I would be most grateful for any knowledge, advice, if you don't mind.

Thank you.

I have the identical problem like yours. So, what battery you have put it in eventually? 357 or 386?

Omega Beta 21: Battery retaining prong/screw has extra spacer!!

Dualmonitors

webvan

Dualmonitors

webvan

JackDaniels83

Archer

Uscjake87

webvan

Dualmonitors

Uscjake87

Dualmonitors

Uscjake87

JackDaniels83

ccue888

Similar threads

Batteries for Omega f300, Beta 21 cal 1300, etc: 1.35v zinc air ok?

Omega Beta 21: Case Back Gasket - where to buy?