Reading closely, it says "The second legend in the series will incorporate moon dust as well as fragments of the Apollo XI and Soyuz space shuttles and the International Space Station ISS." And "Steel from the Apollo 11 space shuttle will be used for the case..."

It never says the moon dust was from Apollo 11. Moon dust could be from meteorites originated from the Moon that fell on earth naturally. In fact the moon meteorite used on the caseback of the gold 50th LE is of these sources. Quote the following page "Naturally transported Moon rocks in the form of lunar meteorites are sold and traded among private collectors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Luna_mission_sample_returns

There's no way Romain Jerome purchased/obtained Apollo lunar samples from NASA.

 

Then it‘s probably rather earth dust on moon meteorits...

 

"The watches' dials, which feature tiny craters, will have dust in them from the moon rock that was taken from the first visit to the Earth's satellite"

 

Are those shorts qualified for EVA?

 

God, that Romain Jerome is ugly, moon dust or not. Also, what exactly is the "Apollo 11 space shuttle"?

 

Good attempt, but I think you need to put more effort into that leg lift.

Perhaps Buzz was not aware of the influence he would have in generations to come.

Miss Rachel below apparently has some good tips on how to get that NASA Moon Butt in shape for the summer holidays...

 

And you really believe that as a watchmaker I am unaware of what all those mean? More accurate I can certainly believe, it's the "durability" claim that is suspect in my mind...because as someone who services watches all day long, and has experience in servicing co-axial watches, I can tell you all the things you list have zero impact on durability...

 

Must be modelling the new NASA Z2 shorts (Kevlar ??)

 

It appears that for the application your watch may not be period correct

 

Fine, we are not far apart then...

The orginal post clearly mentioned „durability or accuracy“.
I was referring mainly to the accuracy bit, and apparently you accept that too, that the new one is superior! No nonsense here!
Since I made good experience in movement durability in general with traditional movements and the prolongation of the service intervals to 10 years, as promissed from Omega for the co-ax movement have not been met, I understand your doubts here. Mind you, the usage of Silicium is certainly an advantage as well! Not to forget the magnetism bit.

 

I missed that... I still found it hard to believe that NASA would sell these, so I did some more research. Based on the discussion below, the editor of CollectSpace stated that:

The source of the lunar material is proprietary to Romain Jerome, however it was certified authentic by the Lunar Planetary Institute (LPI) in Houston. LPI works closely with NASA.
The Association of Space Explorers inspected the provenance and authenticity of the materials being used in the watches, and "are satisfied that all of the materials were acquired legally and ethically."
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000716.html

So Romain Jerome did not obtain these from NASA. Is it truly “dust of moon rocks” from Apollo 11 or moon meteorite, how did they get it “legally and ethically”, I don’t know.

 

Omega have made COSC version of the 861 previously (Cal. 864), so getting more accuracy is not a huge deal to be honest. My own 1971 Cal. 861 Speedmaster meets all the accuracy criteria for METAS and COSC in terms of average rates and positional variation. I regularly service Speedmasters that end up with numbers this good. Is it easier with the technology they will put on the new movement? Yes certainly, in fact it should be child's play, and not really require much in the way of actual watchmaking in a traditional sense - when you can essentially print perfect balance springs, accuracy stops being anything difficult to produce.

There's virtually no evidence that the co-axial really increases service intervals, so the claim is not backed up anything real or solid in my view.

 

And this is exactly the point! I have several moonwatches. All run well, but NON as stable over months as e.g. a Tudor MT5402. And this is due to the new matrials. This is relevant for the average watch buyer „out there“. This is what he/she directly experiences positively day by day - and this over years!

Same counts for anti magnetism. And you - as a watchmaker - know how big this issue is!

Regarding co-ax: There are different believes out there. What seams „proven“ is, that the Daniels escapement is superior in various ways to the Swiss-ancer escapement. And that it has far less friction... This should have a positiv impact over the long run as well... But I agree. As a co-ax watch owner myself as well, I do not see for me an advantage - yet! And I speak for around 10 years now...

 

How could I possibly arguer with all those exclamation points...you clearly won me over mate.

 

I’m not sure you’re convinced... maybe it’s the lack of exclamation points...?.

 

Well, I am not a native english speaking person, so sometimes it is not easy for me to see behind such statements as yours now.
Anyway, finally it wouldn’t be my problem if you would hold on established technology and restrain from new ones...

 

New technology? Well "technology" surpassed the co-axial escapement, silicon balance springs, and all of Omega's modern mechanical watches about 50 years ago when the oscillator went from being a balance to a quartz crystal.

Again this discussion brings me back to the different views people have of watchmaking, and why you are interested in mechanical watches in the first place. You appear to be of the group that is the "latest tech and materials" group of collectors who seem fascinated by the latest material change or design tweak the brands produce. That's not me.

For me this is about tradition and workmanship, and the application of skills to parts to make them perform better. A silicon balance spring is certainly technically a wonderful thing for accuracy, but applying skills to it won't make it any better than it is when it comes from the silicon wafer. Over time the skills required to manipulate balance springs is going to be lost because of technology like this. For me a watch that can't be made more accurate by me working on it is something I'm not very interested in. It's sort of a "dumb" watch - might as well wear a quartz watch in that case.

Watchmaking is already be dumbed down by brand policies that make watchmakers into nothing but parts changers. Have a worn balance staff in your watch? Well sorry but we at brand O don't sell balance staffs for any watch we make now, so rather than use the skills you trained hard to acquire to disassemble the balance, cut the old staff out in the lathe, rivet a new staff in place, poise and assemble the balance again, you just now replace the entire balance. Is it convenient and quick? Yes absolutely, but is it real watchmaking? Not so much...

At the service center the watchmakers don't even open the mainspring barrel and replace the mainspring - they just drop a new barrel complete in the watch...again parts replacers...

Now if that's what you like about watches, I have no problem with that. But it's not what I want...at all...

The "quartz crisis" nearly killed mechanical watchmaking, and now it's the drive to make mechanical watches as dumb and quartz like as possible that may just finish them off for good.

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks! Now we are on the same level again! I see und understand your points fully - and they are all valid! And true - and somehow sad!

I adore old watch craftmanship! I am not the tech-fan per se! Not at all! But I do not have the funds for lets say a Dufour watch. I just see - as a watch enthousiast, that newer technology can bring advantages. As it did in the past when they went from the open balance to elinvar balances... Also there skills disappeared... and new ones emerged...

Isn‘t it the same with cars ans „car-makers“ - and with other „hand-crafts“ and skills.

And soon surgery will be handeld by special robots (it already exist - the davinci robot) who is more accurate and „stable“ then the human being...

I am a watch enthousiast for the past 25+ years now. Only mechanical watches to be precise. But for me a watch is also the only jewelry for a man! Its often simply beautiful to look at! From the front and the back!

The question is really, how will the mechanical watch evolve in the future? Silicon as a material seam to be accepted, vs e.g. Spring drive technology not... Has it a future when it does‘t evolve or even vice versa? I don’t know...

Coming back to actual watches: if I could choose the same watch - 1. cal 1861 or 2. cal 3861 - there us no question; I would choose 2!

 

It’s a pass from me.

Omega have made some really nice and desirable anniversary Speedmasters here and there over the years, but they’ve missed the mark on this one to my mind.

I also appreciate however, that for others this will be a desirable and collectible reference. It’s just not for me. I still prefer my A11 35th.