I’ve now read the other thread provided by
@STANDY, and have a few thoughts as are relevant to this thread.
And viewing this thread as different from the prior thread in that (1) we now have the “domed” sapphire of the cal.321 to compare to either the 60th Ann. domed crystals and the ‘regular’ speedy sapphires, and (2) the prior post was a pre-cal.3861 musing on what it’s sapphire might be like, which now may be given a post-mortem.
But first, having learned from the prior thread’s discussion, a terminology correction per @Archer’s directions there:
From a general watchmaking perspective, the regular speedy’s sapphire is also “domed,” insofar as the crystal has any concave feature whatsoever (as compared to a “top hat” type sapphire, completely flat).
From there, though, I add that Omega’s marketing materials have a slightly different approach to terminology in that the basic marketing/product materials appear to describe the regular speedy sapphires simply as “sapphire”, while the marketing product materials describe the 60th Ann. and cal.361 crystals as “domed sapphire.”
Accordingly, the notion of “domed” used in watchmaking is to that extent different from Omega’s marking terminology regarding “domed.”
That terminology quirk laid out (especially in order to not irk the watchmakers amongst us - and I’m all for precision in terms): I’ll here use the terms “regular sapphire” and “domed” as implicated by Omega’s marketing speak.
Turning to the substance of the other thread, the most compelling (only?) functional trade off of domed vs regular sapphire was suggested to be that domed sapphire necessarily results in optical refracting and distortion that are unpalatable. On this view, Omega could make more domed sapphire to address the milky ring, but in doing so would introduce other issues (that perhaps Omega finds more repugnant than the milky ring):
But apparently it's not really hard and that domed sapphire is avoided due to extra reflection (?) what are your thoughts on this?
But the minute you looked at the dial you would notice due to the refractive properties of the two different materials.
It may look the same side on but it will never look the same looking through it. That's the main point as I rarely look at the profile of a watch compared to the amount of time I actually look at the watch.
Just look at the distortion on this picture posted on page 2 ( this would annoy many more than the milky ring )
My guess is that Omega chose the "less-domed" shape for the sapphire to reduce distortions. Why make exactly the same watch given all the other complaints of Omega rehashing the same model in too many variations? I like the reduced distortion and increased clarity on my sapphire Speedmaster, one of the many reasons I bought it ....
Only now in retrospect with the cal.321 domed sapphire in hand can we say that this reflection/distortion concern appears to have either been incorrect or overcome by the cal.321’s sapphire design.
But it raises a new and interesting (is anyone even reading anymore?) question about the “dome” of the 60th Ann. vs the cal.321. In a subsequent post I’ll include pictures of this comparison, but my armchair take is that: (A) the cal.321 is somewhat less “domed” than the 60th Ann., but (B) the cal.321 manages to have less milky ring, less refraction, and less distortion than the 60th Ann. sapphires.
If so, then it is possible that in the cal.321 Omega managed to find a solution in simultaneously using less dome, but achieving a reduction in all of milk/reflection/refraction.
If nothing else, with the cal.321 in hand, the prior thread’s suspicion that a domed sapphire would require undesirable reflection/refraction seems to have been an obstacle overcome.
Ans, now with cal.3861 in the wild, the prior thread’s aspiration that Omega address the milky ring in the the model’s sapphire appears to have gone unfulfilled - based only on pictures/videos seem to date, and the fact that the cal.3861 has not been offered with the “domed” sapphire similar to the cal.321.
So, for those on the prior thread hoping Omega would address the dome/milk sapphire issue in the new model, the post-mortem appears more discouraging than they could have anticipated: not only did Omega not address this in the new cal.3861, but Omega did not address it even though the cal.321 proves they had the option to do so.
What’s still not settled, though:
(1) were there material functional costs
other than milk/reflect/distort that caused Omega to not use the domed crystal in the cal.3861? (If good reasons, the .3861 hopefuls may be glad to hear the benefits, while the cal.321 hopefuls may be interested to know the costs)
(2) to the extent the cal.321 dome sapphire in fact bears the 60th Ann. in terms of milk/reflect/distort, is that improvement the result solely of the cal.321 sapphire design, or instead involve other design differences (eg the polished rehaut on the 60th Ann).
(3) given how maligned the milky ring is, and given how the cal.321 was marketed toward a type of “I want it modern but with all the charms of vintage” buyer, why hasn’t Omega remotely marketed the angle of “hear us out: yes our cal.321 has used sapphire unlike the original Ed White, but we have created a domed sapphire that appears remarkably close to hesalite”. One strange answer would be Omega didn’t notice (very un-Omega like). Another equally strange answer is that it’s an Easter-egg feature Omega is playing cool (also very un-Omega like).
Personally, and this is obviously pure conjecture, the pessimist in me finds it most likely (absent better suggestions) that either (1) there’s a trade off in the cal.321 dome benefits they don’t want to tell cal.321 owners, or (2) there’s a trade off in the cal.3861 sapphire the don’t want to tell the cal.3861 owners.
But the optimist might say that Omega intends the cal.321 sapphire benefits to delineate the lines, while not rubbing in the faces of cal.3861 owners?
📖
