Indeed, the key question here is whether the 3861 will be NASA certified.
The Gold Apollo 11 50th Speedy LE does not state "FLIGHT QUALIFIED BY NASA FOR ALL SPACE MISSIONS", just "FIRST WATCH WORN ON THE MOON". Why would Omega get qualification for the 3861 for a 7K LE run on a pseudo two-tone Speedy and not for their flagship PM "moonshine gold"Apollo 11 50th LE?
IF the 3861 is certified in the future and IF (a massive galaxy sized IF) Omega manage to persuade somehow NASA to choose the 3861 Speedmaster on the upcoming Mars mission...well then I think the 3861 Speedy LEs will have significant demand. On the other hand, if the 3861 Speedy does not gain NASA certification, I think the 1861 watches will still retain value as the last Speedmaster range certified for Space/EVA.
To be honest, I really can't see a technical reason for NASA continuing to use mechanical hand-wound Speedmasters in space missions vs more modern technology in the 21st century. Why would a Government publicly funded agency bother to go through all the certification effort for clearly obsolete technology, even if Omega were to cover the cost for the 3861?
Indeed, the key question here is whether the 3861 will be NASA certified.
The Gold Apollo 11 50th Speedy LE does not state "FLIGHT QUALIFIED BY NASA FOR ALL SPACE MISSIONS", just "FIRST WATCH WORN ON THE MOON". Why would Omega get qualification for the 3861 for a 7K LE run on a pseudo two-tone Speedy and not for their flagship PM "moonshine gold"Apollo 11 50th LE?
IF the 3861 is certified in the future and IF (a massive galaxy sized IF) Omega manage to persuade somehow NASA to choose the 3861 Speedmaster on the upcoming Mars mission...well then I think the 3861 Speedy LEs will have significant demand. On the other hand, if the 3861 Speedy does not gain NASA certification, I think the 1861 watches will still retain value as the last Speedmaster range certified for Space/EVA.
To be honest, I really can't see a technical reason for NASA continuing to use mechanical hand-wound Speedmasters in space missions vs more modern technology in the 21st century. Why would a Government publicly funded agency bother to go through all the certification effort for clearly obsolete technology, even if Omega were to cover the cost for the 3861?
I wonder to what extent a new movement would need a full certification process. The 3861 looks, to my wholly non-expert eye, remarkably similar to the 1861, just with a new balance spring. Is it possible that Omega could basically demonstrate that the silicone balance spring meets it exceeds the performance of the previous version on all relevant tests, and therefore, the new movement doesn't need to go through the full spectrum of tests as a whole?
New balance spring and coaxial escarpment
https://watchbase.com/omega/caliber/3861
As my post above all are based on the 1873 Lemania
https://watchbase.com/lemania/caliber/1873
I've been wondering the same thing, especially since the Swatch Group annual report statement about equipping all future mechanical Swatch Group watches with antimagnetic balance springs:
https://www.swatchgroup.com/en/services/archive/2019/swatch-group-key-figures-2018
I've spent some significant time looking around for some information or speculation on this, but I haven't found any. I'm a little surprised. Maybe I'm just not searching for the right terms. If there is some, I'd appreciate a point in the right direction.
What are the chances we see an update to the normal Speedmaster Professional with another X861 movement (ie, just like the 3861 but without all the gold bling)? I assume it would be NASA-certified and everything, but basically an updated 1861/1863 with a silicone balance spring. And maybe an updated bracelet, hopefully with the mini end link and/or a quick-adjust clasp.
1861 movements will be replaced by the 3861 as they will not produce 2 manual movements
It’s still based off the 1873 Lemania
https://watchbase.com/lemania/caliber/1873
Not sure why you think they would not produce 2 manually wound movements at the same time. They already produce several manual wound movements based on the Lemania (1861, 1863, 1869 - not sure about the 1866 at this stage), and in the past have produced others based on the F. Piguet (3200, 3201, 3203) at the same time the Lemania movements were in production...
You have made an assumption that the "anti-magnetic balance spring" equals a silicon balance spring, but if you read the information that you linked to, there is another option.
"In future, all mechanical watches for Swatch Group brands will feature antimagnetic properties, either with the silicon balance spring or the Nivachron balance spring, both patented inventions."
You have made an assumption that the "anti-magnetic balance spring" equals a silicon balance spring, but if you read the information that you linked to, there is another option.
"In future, all mechanical watches for Swatch Group brands will feature antimagnetic properties, either with the silicon balance spring or the Nivachron balance spring, both patented inventions."
Not sure why you think they would not produce 2 manually wound movements at the same time. They already produce several manual wound movements based on the Lemania (1861, 1863, 1869 - not sure about the 1866 at this stage), and in the past have produced others based on the F. Piguet (3200, 3201, 3203) at the same time the Lemania movements were in production...
indeed, Omega also manufactures the hand-wound 8511 powering the PM Deville Tresor range, including this year's red dialed 125th LE edition.
Yeah, that is just my assumption. If I remember correctly, Omega was one of the early pioneers on silicone balance springs (and they may have some associated patents), so it seemed logical to me that they would go that route, bring at the upper echelon of the Swatch Group. That being said, there are now more options, so they certainly aren't limited to just silicone. Either way, they add antimagnetic characteristics (and hopefully, a Master Chronometer certification) to the non-LE Speedmasters.
Not sure why you think they would not produce 2 manually wound movements at the same time.
This is what prompted my 8511 reference comment, but I do think your point that Omega would have no issues in running simultaneous production for more than one manual wind chronograph is clearly more relevant to the Speedmaster discussion.
You have made an assumption that the "anti-magnetic balance spring" equals a silicon balance spring, but if you read the information that you linked to, there is another option.
"In future, all mechanical watches for Swatch Group brands will feature antimagnetic properties, either with the silicon balance spring or the Nivachron balance spring, both patented inventions."
Not sure why you think they would not produce 2 manually wound movements at the same time. They already produce several manual wound movements based on the Lemania (1861, 1863, 1869 - not sure about the 1866 at this stage), and in the past have produced others based on the F. Piguet (3200, 3201, 3203) at the same time the Lemania movements were in production...
Silicon...not silicone - there's a difference. 😉
M Matty1If I wanted a non LE Speedmaster pro. Would you buy current, wait for new model or even try to get the 321?
