Even before the .3861 release, I've wondered why the .321 doesn't appear to have the standard degree of sapphire "milky ring." (It's still visible at just-so angles, but much more subtly than I've experienced with other pre-3861 sapphires.) Here's an admittedly 'optimized' (in terms of angle) photo of the .321:



Early photographs and videos of the sapphire .3861 appear to show what I'd call the standard "milky ring." So I now wondered, "is the .321 really different, and if so, has Omega also changed the .3861?"

The only other sapphire speedy I own is the Tokyo 2020, so I decided to compare. It was difficult, to say the least, to capture on film the difference I was perceiving with my eye - but hopefully the following photos at least allude to a difference. All I can say is that in person it is perceived as even more different.

Tokyo on left, .321 on right:



To my eye, the Tokyo appears to have a more steep curvature, and also rise higher? It's definitely more 'milky' appearing.

Two possible optical illusions here, though:

First, perhaps it is possible that something about the setting for the ceramic bezel makes the .321 sapphire set lower in the bezel than the aluminum bezel housing on the Tokyo? If so, does the resulting additional light 'shielding' minimize the milk?

Second, my Tokyo is the panda, so it's possible that some perceived differences relate to the white vs black dials?

But I'm also otherwise reminded that, somewhere along the way, I heard that Omega used a 'new' technique to laser etch the logo inside of the .321 crystal itself (as compared to on the bottom surface of the crystal). Am I imagining that tidbit? I can't find reference to it now, but seem to remember it being mentioned off-hand in an Omega video of a representative showing off the new .321, some time ago.

Which is all to say:

(1) Wondering why the .321 sapphire appears to have far less 'milk ring' than other pre-.3861 sapphire's I've seen: is there a change in the crystal itself, or instead something about the bezel housing etc., or is it all an optical illusion?

(2) If Omega did use a 'new' technique for laser etching the logo on the .321 crystal, does that suggest it is more likely something else is also different about the .321 sapphire construction itself?

(3) If the .321 crystal is indeed different from the pre-.3861s, are the .3861s with or without the difference? Early photos and videos appear to show standard-ish milk.

On one hand, it would seem strange to me if Omega did something new and better with the .321's sapphire to reduce the much maligned "milky ring" and not scream it from the rooftops; on the other hand, having lived with the .321 and now compared it side-by-side, I'm convinced that - whether real or perceived - the milk has been greatly reduced.

 

321 has a newer dome crystal. There was a bit about it in a thread somewhere with good comparison and photos and explained quite well.
Try frattelo

 

Thank you, @STANDY - Then that would appear to clear the weeds on about half the topic.

The remaining weeds, then, are (1) whether this newer dome crystal is on the new .3861, and (2) if not, why?

I'm assuming the answer is that the new .3861 does not have the newer domed crystal, or we would have heard it shouted (whispered by frattelo?) from the roof tops?

And if the new .3861 does not have the newer domed crystal, then that is a differentiator in Omega's new lines that I've not seen regularly accounted for.

It does, however, help me to know I'm not seeing things...

 

I think you’re looking in the wrong place. The reason I dislike sapphire is because of the way it reflects the light. Hesalite adds warmth to the dial. It’s like comparing CD to vinyl, the older model has a certain charm to it even though it’s technically inferior.

 

Cant say I follow, mate

And if it reflected light less, wouldn’t you maybe dislike it less?

It’s also like comparing CD to vinyl in that I can’t take my vinyl on a rock climb...

Universe comes to a balance

 

@cvalue13 probably haven't heard much about it because so few people can get their hands on the new Ed White. Yours is the first news I have heard about the difference. It certainly looks clear in your photo and more of a dome. I will have to check out the thread Standy mentioned.

Not like I needed yet another reason to want one to be jealous of those wirh the new watches...

Thanks for noticing it and pointing it out.

 

Ive now looked and don’t find much.

Not nearly as much as I’d expect given how hot a topic the sapphire vs plastic debate is

And not at all in regards of people’s curiosity RE details on the .3861, and how it compares with other new offerings

I’ve never loved sapphire, and all else equal prefer the plastic; but have made certain compromises with some purchases. Pleased to have a reason the compromise has seemed less with the .321

 

What you pointed out about the new sapphire also makes the new moonwatch in sapphire more interesting to me as I like the idea of the exhibition back and AML. Since i have an 1861 hesalite, the sapphire would be a justifiable choice. (altough i would prefer the Ed White or Gold moon. Since I'm dreaming why not go all in? )

Do wonder if the new moonwatch will still have as many hesalite purchases over the sapphire. Time will tell.

God that picture up top is nice!

 

The new 3861 Speedmaster and the 321 Ed White do not use the same sapphire crystal.

Cheers, Al

 

Well that is another reason to get the new EW.

Thanks Al.

 

Been looking for more information on the .321 sapphire, but unfortunately I only find brief mentions of the .321 “domed crystal” such as this from Millenary Watches:

“Interesting to note is that this watch is equipped with a sapphire crystal. If it would be a true reedition of the Ed White, it would use a hesalite crystal, but this just goes to show that this is not what Omega is trying to achieve. What’s more, a sapphire crystal is obviously much more practical as it does not scratch in the same way that a hesalite crystal does. But to add a bit of vintage effect, the sapphire crystal is domed.”

Otherwise, the “domed sapphire” crystal is simply listed as a feature such as:



Moving beyond written to video, member @Robert-Jan and Fratello’s review found here discusses the sapphire crystal at the 07:15 mark. He states that the watch has a boxed sapphire (which appears to be incorrect - and if so very forgivable given his watch was still warm from forge when reviewed). But he goes on to say, in short: normally sapphire Speedmasters have a milky ring, but the .321 does not, most likely because of a thinner rehaut or a different colored rehaut.

Then I finally found the video of which I had a vague memory regarding the Omega logo laser etched within the Sapphire: from Watch Advisor, but with the hands-on presented from Bienne and by Gregory Kissling - Head of Product Management for OMEGA

At the 12:25 mark of the video, there is a “and one more thing” Steve Jobs moment. Kissling then describes that, in homage to the original Ed White hesalite bearing an stamped Omega logo, the .321 sapphire has the logo laser etched within the thickness of the sapphire (that is, not on the surface of the sapphire, but within the sapphire). Unfortunately, Kissling says little else of the sapphire.

But, this brought to mind the 60th Anniversary Seamaster and the 60th Anniversary Aqua Terra Railmaster - that are both fitted with a “domed” sapphire crystal, and have the Omega log etched upon them. (Kissling’s talk of the .321 made it seem that only that model has the logo etched within the sapphire “thanks to the later laser generation”.)

I don’t own the 60th Seamaster or Railmaster to know if those “domed” crystals are as restorative of the “milky ring” as is the case on the .321. But based on a quick review of photos and video, the 60th watches appear to have more milk than does the .321.

It could be that on the .321 the combination of the “domed” sapphire with the rehaut mentioned by RJ combine to minimize any milk.

In any event, that the .321 has sapphire but manages to not be so plagued by the maligned “milky ring” seems fairly clarified (pun intended).

 

Sorry for the tangent, but why are you putting a dot before the calibre number?

 

Hadn’t noticed I was doing it.

No defensible reason, except some strange (incorrect) abbreviation of the common “cal. 321” type abbreviation. So, a made up abbreviated-abbreviation?

Perhaps a leftover/glitch remaining from when I wrote this, and typed “cal.X” several hundred times...

 

The 60th Seamaster and Railmasters both have high-polish rehauts. Perhaps that influences our perception of how strong their respective milky ring effects are? Here are some shots of my 60th SM.

I never noticed a milky ring effect on 60th Seamaster. I owned an FOIS at the same time, and that white ring around the FOIS sapphire box was much more noticeable (and bothersome) to me... enough to have motivated me to sell the FOIS and replace it with a Hesalite Pro.

Longbow's review of his 60th Railmaster has a good collection of photos on the RM's sapphire shape.

I find the sapphire shapes on both this SM, and the RM, exquisitely beautiful. Perhaps it's more expensive to produce sapphire crystals with the types curvatures we see on the 321 Ed White, and the 60th anniversary SM and RM models. Or Omega intentionally reserves these for limited production watches, to further improve their desirability.








Off topic, but too bad the rotor noise on the 8806 was so loud... the 60th Seamaster would've been a keeper if only Omega had equipped it with a silent-rotor 8912 instead.

In contrast, here's the milky way of the "boxy" sapphire crystal:

 

I found an unsubstantiated post on WUS that the boxed sapphire is actually the more expensive to produce.

I suppose it’s possible that, for example, the boxed sapphire are stronger due to their construction - with the cost of the optical effects.

That said, the “domed” sapphire on the 60th in your photos has much more “milky” appearance - perhaps amplified by polished rehaut as you say.

 

That actually makes sense. Thanks for the explanation, I thought maybe I was missing some extra meaning.

 

This is the one

https://omegaforums.net/threads/wil...ire-crystal-for-the-speedmaster.104098/page-3

 

What information are you looking for specifically?

 

Thanks, @Archer

As usual a fair question, as one could very reasonably wonder why anyone cares past knowing it’s a “domed” (not boxed) sapphire, and in fact different from the new cal.3861 (the latter being boxed).

But I suppose I was hoping to find a bit more discussion or data around:

-> Omega’s reasoning for the design of the cal.321’s “domed” crystal (e.g., was it, plus any other design elements, affirmatively intended to solve the “milky ring” complaint - or is that an accidental happenstance of merely wanting a sapphire that appeared more vintage-domed)?

-> whether the engineering differences of the “domed” vs “boxed” has any functional trade-offs (e.g., if domed solves for the “milky ring” problem, does it come at the cost of less strength?)

-> and, depending on the answers to both the above, any insights on why this approach wouldn’t be duplicated in the new-and-improved sapphire cal.3861

Perhaps my interest stems from one flawed assumption: that effectively nobody affirmatively likes the “milky ring,” and only tolerate it bc of sapphires other advantages. If instead there are critical mass of folks affirmatively attracted to the “milky ring,” then my curiosity is somewhat mute as it suddenly becomes another design/marketing distinction akin to applied logos, etc.

I suppose it’s also possible that the bulk of Omega’s speedmaster buyers wouldn’t notice or care either way, so it’s a mute issue for Omega from a production standpoint - only labored over by the few dozen folks on OF. But when you see Omega doing things with the cal.3861 like the DON, I have to imagine the much maligned “milky ring” is well within Omega’s radar of design elements to be considered.

If so, then I suppose this all comes down to (A) I’m very happy with my cal.321’s lack of milky ring, and only wonder if that comes at any functional cost I should be aware of, and (B) as a potential purchaser of the new .3861 who is performing the typical “hesalite or sapphire” dance, it’s curious why Omega would not have solved for this in the new sapphire.

Also, it’s fair to say, things at work are very slow this week, my son is very ill, and I’m spending a lot of time sleepless, and next to him on the couch, watching “How to Train Your Dragon” on repeat - which can cause a fella’ to be a little off axis with too much internet time on his hands

 

I should have also said, I’ve not yet dived into @STANDY provided link above, and will do so now - as any number of these questions may be already addressed there. Turning to that thread now (just started “How to Train Your Dragon: 2”