Forums Latest Members
  1. OMTOM Jun 20, 2015

    Posts
    511
    Likes
    1,304
    Following the recent interesting thread about the origins of the Cal.321, with contributions from some knowledgeable people, I would like to go further back into Omega chronograph origins.

    Can anyone help with background info (historical I suppose) about the changes that have occurred to Omega chronograph movements over the years?

    A brief overview as I understand it:

    1) The first was the 19’’’ CHRO in 1898. Then came the 18’’’ CHRO in 1906 and later the 39 CHRO in 1929 (which continued up until about 1940).

    2) It seems the 39 CHRO was a joint venture with LeCoultre. Nonetheless, there were not that many differences from the 18’’’CHRO so I don’t know how much LeCoultre was responsible for the movement.

    3) Then we get the arrival of Lemania, SSHI 1932) and the involvement of CH13 and CH15 – and that led to the 28.9 and 33.3. But here there are considerable differences: the movement is reversed with the balance on the opposite side.

    4) However, with the arrival of the 27 (and all the movements that have followed of course) the movement was reversed back again.

    I attach an image (rather poor quality!) that shows the sequence that I have referred to.

    I wish I could find more about the history of what was going on with design of these movements between (say) 1930 and 1950.

    Can anyone throw light on it please?
    Tom
    Omega & Lemania chrono movements.jpg
     
    unxsr, Etp095, red crowned and 6 others like this.
  2. dsio Ash @ ΩF Staff Member Jun 20, 2015

    Posts
    26,754
    Likes
    32,469
    I've always wondered why they inverted the orientation of everything in the 28.9 then changed back, it seems the 28.9 and 33.3 which are both larger than the 27CHRO/321had to run the coupling yoke between the chronograph seconds wheel and running sub-seconds wheel, while keeping it out of the way in the 321 made more space and allowed them to bring those wheels closer together.
     
  3. watchtinker Jun 20, 2015

    Posts
    380
    Likes
    398
    The topic is very fascinating, but narrowing the focus could help somehow the discussion.
    In fact, the 19’’’ CHRO and 18’’’ CHRO were born as pocket watch movements and were characterised by an arrangement of the components which was dictated by the fact that the chrono functions were commanded by a single pusher. The subsequent movements, including the 27 CHRO, inherited this arrangement. Nevertheless, the mainplate design was found very efficient and also the caliber 861, which got rid of the column wheel (which in a two-pushers chronograph is technically unnecessary), kept essentially the same disposition.
    This with respect to the chrono functions.
    If, on the contrary, we focus the attention on the balance wheel, hairspring and escapement, these movements are very different from each other and represent quite well the evolution of materials and watch design skills over the twentieth century.
     
  4. OMTOM Jun 20, 2015

    Posts
    511
    Likes
    1,304
    Thank you Maurice. You are quite right to point out the pocket watch origins of the early movements. But if we started with the 28.9 and 33.3 (thus CH13 and CH15), everything since then has effectively been Lemania – who might say that anything that happened before them is irrelevant.

    So what led Lemania to want to reverse their own orientation for the 27? Taking your (correct) focus on the balance and escapement, what did they benefit by (significantly) changing their layout – which has changed little since (accepting your point about the column wheel)?
     
  5. watchtinker Jun 21, 2015

    Posts
    380
    Likes
    398
    You are most welcome.
    Restricting our attention to the CH13s, which span, approximately, from 1932 to 1939 it is certainly true that they constitute the bones of Lemania crono production in the Thirties and continue to the end of the Forties with the CH15 derivation. From a technical standpoint the reverse orientation is probably inherited from the original 28.9 CHRO, which was designed to be commanded by a single pusher at the crown. The reverse orientation, in fact, gives a tiny advantage in allocating the components for such an operating arrangement.
    The 27CHRO was, on the contrary, an entirely new project born at the beginning of the Forties as a two-pushers chronograph.
    Again, it is remarkable that its evolution, the caliber 861, keeps essentially the same design of the mainplate offering at the same time a better engineering of the whole movement. Observing the movements one might notice that such a transition could not have been so straightforward on a reverse movement.
     
    OMTOM likes this.
  6. OMTOM Jun 22, 2015

    Posts
    511
    Likes
    1,304
    Again, thank you.

    As you point out, the success of the 27 design is evidenced by the fact that (apart from the column wheel change), the movement had spanned so many years. The Cal.19’’’ is revered, having put Omega on the road. In time to come (maybe already?), the 27CHRO will presumably be viewed in the same way.
     
  7. Northernman Lemaniac Jun 22, 2015

    Posts
    4,422
    Likes
    18,121
    According to Ranft and others the CH27 aka 321 was built using the Lemania S27 three handed movement as a starting point/base. In extent they started of with a wristwatch movement they had already used and honed over some years. The 15TL was, as pointed out, based on pocket watch designs.
     
    omegastar and OMTOM like this.
  8. watchtinker Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    380
    Likes
    398
    The Lemania S27 has a strong resemblance with the CH27, but cannot be rightfully considered a stripped down version of the later. In fact, the balance wheels cannot be swapped.
    It is a pity that most of the knowledge about the evolution of these calibers went lost with the passing away of the watchmakers of the time.
     
    OMTOM likes this.
  9. Northernman Lemaniac Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    4,422
    Likes
    18,121
    The S27 was never said to be a stripped down version of the CH27. It is the opposite. Albert Piguet was at the time the technical manager at Lemania (and later board member of SSHI Omega-Tissot-Lemania) . When he started the job to design a compact chronograph for use in wristwatches (the CH27) he took a proven base caliber (the S27) and used this as a basis.
    Of course the base plate was entirely redesigned, but several distinguishable features from the S27 design lived on in the CH27.

    Many of the features of the S27 was also carried over into the Lemania caliber 3000 series. Except from the movement we know as Omega 381 (Lemania 3300 + moon phase), the Lemania 3000 caliber was kept in-house.

    The "problem" with sourcing information on older Lemania movements is that Swatch Group converted the company into Manufacture Breguet.
    Where most Swiss watch companies are bragging about their past achievements, Breguet (Swatch) does not like to remind its clientelle that they only recently re-gained the ability to make their own movements. Hence, Lemania history is kept quiet. You can still see traces of the CH27 in the latest Breguet chronograph developments!

    Certain Omega collectors are also holding their noses when they are reminded of the fact that many of the most desired models was actually not made by Omega at all. Omega Cosmic cal 381, and more or less every single chronograph, Speedmasters included, falls into this category.
     
  10. watchtinker Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    380
    Likes
    398
    The first S27s (base and T1) seem to have been made available roughly at the same time of the CH27 and for such a reason they could have been thought to share (to a certain extent) the same mainplate of the CH27. However, I am happy to learn that they dated prior than 1942. When was the first series of S27 made available?

    I entirely agree. However, over many, many years I have learned that the vast majority of collectors do not have a proper watch knowledge and simply focus the attention on what is visible: hand, dials, cases. This fact has had the effect that most information about the real core of the watches, their movement, has not been recorded or organised and has become lost.
     
    micampe and OMTOM like this.
  11. Northernman Lemaniac Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    4,422
    Likes
    18,121
    I do not have a firm "year of introduction" of the S27. I have reason to believe, based on watches with this movement that I have seen, it must be late 1930s, possibly early 1940s.
    When they made the 1944 Lemania WWW, the caliber S27A was used. The S27A is clear further development and looks much more like the later cal 3000. There are also other "intermittent" versions out there.
    The S27 was used in parallel for a while before being replaced entirely by the cal 3000.
    I have a cal 3000 watch with a 3 digit serial (1940s), and S27 with serial numbers as late as early 1950s.

    S27 (from ranfft):
    [​IMG]
    S27A:

    IMG_3493-ud.jpg

    And the cal 3000:

    IMG_0099-ud.jpg
     
  12. watchtinker Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    380
    Likes
    398
    Can we therefore assume that both S27 and CH27 share the same age?

    Interestingly, your caliber 27A seems equipped with a screwless balance wheel. Is it original to the watch?
     
    OMTOM likes this.
  13. Northernman Lemaniac Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    4,422
    Likes
    18,121
    I would say that the CH27 comes after the S27. There is a passage, I believe in the "Omega Saga", where this is mentioned. I need to check back home.

    The 27A caliber is from the Lemania WWW watch made to chronometer grade spec for the British War Department in 1944 (delivered in the spring of 1945). You will find the complete photo documented service log here: http://watchguy.co.uk/cgi-bin/library?action=show_photos&wat_id=927
    The movement, including the balance, is believed to be original to the watch, and resembles that of other known examples.
     
    OMTOM likes this.
  14. dsio Ash @ ΩF Staff Member Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    26,754
    Likes
    32,469
    Would be interesting to also mention the often rumoured first automatic chronograph Lemania made in 1947 in this list, even though it was a prototype as it definitely pre-dated the three usual argument starters from ~1969
     
  15. Northernman Lemaniac Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    4,422
    Likes
    18,121
    Now you got me interested.... Any info?
     
  16. persco Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    269
    Likes
    623
    What a great thread. :) I wish I could make a substantive contribution to it, but all I've got is appreciation!
     
    kkrankall likes this.
  17. Northernman Lemaniac Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    4,422
    Likes
    18,121
  18. dsio Ash @ ΩF Staff Member Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    26,754
    Likes
    32,469
    Years ago I collected as many photos as I could of them, there are at least 3-4 of them floating around which means there are likely many more nobody knows about, its a CH27 with a bumper automatic winding system installed, apparently its actually a quite decent execution but Lemania / SSIH group saw no demand for it in the market and never put it into serial production.

    Its actually a pretty amazing thing to look at, most of the early automatic chronographs are ugly, especially the Calibre 11 and the Seiko, this Lemania from over 20 years earlier actually looks more beautiful if that were even possible, imagine having one of these with a display back?

    The Ch27 family has always had that sort of mystique and prestige surrounding it for collectors due to its staggering longevity and use of the design in everything from the most desirable Speedmasters to modern Pateks like the 5970, things like beating the world in automatic chronographs by over two decades only really adds to that.

    LemaniaAutomatiquechrono1-BusinessMontres.jpg LemaniaAutomatiquechrono4-BusinessMontres.jpg 29804956933fe6c6be3b03d3eab5fad3.jpg
     
  19. Northernman Lemaniac Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    4,422
    Likes
    18,121
    I am amazed! I have read several books on chronographs and their development. Why have they all failed to mention this?

    BTW: I just got myself the ultimate grail watch..... :whistling:
     
  20. dsio Ash @ ΩF Staff Member Jun 23, 2015

    Posts
    26,754
    Likes
    32,469
    I've already called shotgun on the next one to turn up :cautious:, I've been looking for years, literally every Lemania I look at, I check the movement just in case it has a golden ticket inside. I'll try to find some more of the pictures and post a separate thread sometime dedicated to it.

    The bumper design is interesting as its almost completely outboard of the movement, but with the 27mm movement size they've got enough room to do it without making the watch too big, probably would have fitted in the Speedmaster if they'd wanted to make the Moonwatch automatic from the beginning.

    Also note the engraving on the rotor:

    "Premiere Chronographe A Remontage Automatique" - dated 28th October 1947

    Which translates into English as:

    "The First Self-Winding Chronograph"

    Apparently it was simply a lack of demand for an automatic chronograph in the post-war years that lead to it being shelved before full production began, it was a sufficiently robust and reliable system, there was just no way to justify the added cost.
     
    OMTOM, TNTwatch and micampe like this.