It is clear omega's execution is better than ever. Really if you compare LEs that have come out since snoopy the design and polish on these watches including presentation materials exceeds anything they have done. However, that execution means they are stretching themselves creatively and taking risks. Compare this to Rolex; can you imagine a submariner or daytona with these kind of creative touches?

In that way, Omega is really peerless in what they are doing. But that means people are going to form strong opinions of course. I, for one, am not a fan of this one.

Cheers

 

A couple good shots in different light and distance. The gold is very pale and subdued.

 

Al, I can understand your frustration as an experienced and well trained watchmaker observing the current "dumbing down" of mechanical movements and the skills required to service them. As you well know Tudor have taken this a step further and now swap the whole in-house movement during service as standard policy!

However, what I cannot agree with is your perception as to how it will affect the market demand for mechanical watches. Please consider the points below:

Whatever the exact root cause (materials science, better manufacturing processes, improved synthetic oils etc.) technology has allowed Rolex to formally increase service intervals to ten years.

For the vast majority of the watch buying public, increased service intervals as well as increased warranty to five or more years (Omega, Rolex, now JLC) generates a perceived reduction of the total cost of ownership of a luxury watch, reducing the apparent risk of the financial commitment required for watch ownership.

For the same public, the level of finishing achieved with machined finished Geneva stripes et al. on the Omega co-axial calibers (for example) has sufficient "wow factor" and I think only a few will invest time and effort to learn about anglage, perlage or even buy a loupe to look at the watch in any more detail. At the end of the day the finishing only needs to be "good enough" to tell the "story" of "apparent" mechanical craftsmanship, which is just part of the theatre on your wrist, together with the emotional aspects of the brand or specific watch pedigree (used on the moon, worn on top of a mountain etc.)

We live in a world obsessed more by "high performance" than "deep reflection". So any "story" the watch brand can create about significant R&D work to achieve supposedly higher level of "performance" (METAS, Superlative Chronometer etc.), also becomes part of the wrist theatre. The client is purchasing the illusion of excellence, of humans working their hardest to achieve something unique in terms of precision etc. Once you buy a few mechanical watches...you realize that there is a huge amount of hubris involved regarding the in-house/technology development story from a movement performance perspective.

So at the end of the day, as long as watch brands are creating compelling wrist theater for the general watch buying public, I think they will increasingly sell luxury watches with "dumbed down movements" that just need to look "pretty" and "perform" within spec, especially if the "dumbing down" movement technology allows them to extend warranty and service intervals, and perhaps even reduce service cost.

Cheers, Bruno (aka RP)

 

The more i see it in natural light the more i like it.
When i'll be able to buy one, i'll probably purchase an extra bezel.....because i'm going to wear it a lot and the one with the watch it's going to be scratched soon.....

 

It’s ceramic, you’re good.

 

Yeah, unless you are throwing bricks around or some other severe activity you won't hurt the bezel.

 

I’m finding it really hard to look past the 9 o’clock subdial. This watch is a letdown for me.

Oh well, I’ll get my 105.012 serviced this Summer as my own personal commemoration of the 50th anniversary.

 

Someone made an unboxing video and haven't seen it posted in these threads, so here goes:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BxouxIEAJ5p/

Personally I think it looks much better in these more realistic pictures and videos and could pull the trigger. The only issue I have is the grey part of the dial. Guess it has to be seen in real life.

 

The more I see it the more I love it! Fingers crossed here in the UK.

 

Yes it is frustrating, and it shouldn't be just to me...

For myself I will have work until the day I die I'm sure, but as most people on this forum know there is a massive shortage of watchmakers out there, and the direction that watches are taking is going to cause a loss of skills that will be difficult to get back. If the current trend in making movements dumber from a watchmaking perspective is a result of the lack of watchmakers, or the cause of it I'm not sure, but one thing is clear - it isn't helping the situation.

This should be a concern for all those who collect mechanical watches, and a big part of my frustration is people not recognizing that.

The way watches are serviced is going through more changes than most people realize. Service centers are becoming even more "unskilled" and more and more jobs are being done by people with no formal watchmaking training. It used to be just uncasing and casing, refinishing, etc. but that is expanding to work on movements in some instances.

I snipped the rest of your post because you have misinterpreted what I was saying - I wasn't commenting on the "market" for mechanical watches, but of what the mechnical watch actually is. It's becoming a piece of "tech" rather than what it was, which was something much more.

Your post illustrated that the marketing works very well - the same thing is illustrated throughout this entire thread. People talking about how "important" this 50th anniversary watch is - it's amazing to me that people see a commemerative watch in that light and shows that Omegas long hammering of the "Moonwatch" over the decades has worked wonders with some people. Let's be honest, the original watch was made for timing races, and had nothing to do with the moon or space. The watch was selected as a piece of equipment, along with tens of thousands of other pieces of equipment that were used on the various missions. Now decades later a watch that really doesn't resemble the watch that went on those missions (different movement, gold on the case, sapphire crystals, etc.) is now labelled as "important"? That to me is about the oddest thing I could imagine, but is a testament to the marketing that Omega has done.

By the way some of the things you mention in your post are great - it really is perception that is at play most of the time, because no matter what the warranty and service interval increases are, they are still being paid for by the end consumer. Very much like "free" service on my BMW for the first 4 years - we all know we are paying for it in the purchase price, but still it helps sells cars and watches too.

You give the example of Rolex - yes they increased their warranty to 5 years. I have a friend who worked at an RSC and said this has caused no end of warranty claims, and they have a team of watchmakers now just working on warranty repairs. Replacing worn rotor axles, cleaning and lubricating the escapements that dry up before the 5 years time frame is up. Essentially Rolex is able to market a 10 year service interval knowing fully that they will likely have the watch back in the 5 year warranty period to "fix", so yes the watch will go another 5 years after that, and the first paid service is now out at 10 years. And so the myth of the Rolex magical 10 year service interval is created by servicing all the watches at 5 years under warranty, and people believe it's some new technology that accomplishes this. Rolex doesn't have magical lubricants or materials, no matter what they tell you about 904L.

The level of deception is sometimes staggering, as is the willingness to believe what brands say...

Anyway, I get your point fully.

Cheers, Al

 

There is only 1 Omega qualified watchmaker that I know of where I live in Houston, the 4th largest city in the US. Wish there were more ...

 

https://timeandtidewatches.com/brin...eedmasters-weve-ever-seen-back-from-the-dead/
Interesting article about what a genuine watchmaker can do to your watch.

 

I've done similar, but left the weld spatter on the watch at the request of the watch owner. I personally find it a bit sad that all that history (and testimony to the durability of it) has been erased from that particular watch...

 

Your posts are very interesting indeed. I guess the new Rolex movements (32xx) where the barrels have to be replaced are dumbed down a bit too. What is your opinion on the 31xx vs 32xx movements?

And an Omega question: buy the 1861 Speedy while we can before it gets replaced with a co-axial movement?

(That's what I thought anyway and bought a standard Speedy recently.)

 

I very much enjoy and learn from your technical posts, Archer. Unlike most new Rolex and Omega models, vintage mechanical watches are still affordable in many cases, but people willing and able to service them properly are increasingly rare. Those remaining will often have a backlog of several months, and of course their prices are not the lowest, as their work is more painstaking and time consuming. Should I be disappointed that my vintage watch, worth only a few hundred dollars at best, has a new balance staff, or that the entire barrel was replaced rather than just the mainspring? It's now accurate to about 3 seconds a day. The dial, case and crown are all original and correct. Maybe that's all I can ask for as a practical matter. Your no doubt formidable skills may be more appropriate for more unusual, valuable and complicated specimens. That would explain why your kind is becoming an endangered species.

 

I don't typically get modern Rolex to work on - of course I've serviced 3035's and 3135's, but nothing newer, and most of my work is on 1570's and older. For the Speedmaster, I have no ideas if Omega plans to change the movement in the regular Speedmaster or not, but if they do and I wanted a Speedmaster, I would grab an 1861 version while I could if I wanted a new one.

 

This assumes that you can get those complete assemblies, and often you can't for vintage watches, at least not new parts. So now you are left to look for a used balance complete we'll say, and hope that it's in better shape than the one you have that has a broken staff. You might end up buying more than one to get a good one - been down this road many times looking for good used parts when new parts aren't available. If the watch is popular and parts are scarce, you will also pay through the nose for the new balance, so this is also about cost.

Balance staffs were once plentiful for watches, and in many cases you can still find them for vintage watches, so that's a bonus. But you aren't going to find staffs out on the open market if the company never provided them in the first place, and that's the situation with Omega's modern watches. If the watch is worth enough, you can get a staff made, but most people aren't going to want to pay for that unless it is truly a special watch...

 

I'm lucky to have 3 speedies with 1861. A vanilla, an Ultraman and a Tintin! I think I hold one of the best of modern time Moonwatches!!

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer. It‘s very useful to get a watchmakers view on these issues. I’m very happy with my 1861 Speedy.

I also have a new GMT Pepsi with 3285 and an Explorer with 3130 but both are quite new and running within 0 to +2 seconds per day. When they become really vintage I might not be around to see which is less of a problem for the watchmaker ( and new owner)....

 

Hope this is true. That's the nearest OB to me, as well. It'll probably cost a small fortune but it's going to be really difficult for me not to buy that bracelet.