Which is exactly why, whatever Omega chooses to admit publicly I will literally be shocked if they do not replace these dials as a courtesy. Omega is willing to replace SMP dials with a single hour marker out of alignment, they'll replace these.
Which is exactly why, whatever Omega chooses to admit publicly I will literally be shocked if they do not replace these dials as a courtesy. Omega is willing to replace SMP dials with a single hour marker out of alignment, they'll replace these.
I’m a little less sure about this than you are, certainly.
Post your macro shots in this thread if you can. Not that they would settle anything but they are cool.
Wait... isnt the foot also missing a line in that one? lol
Sure, I posted one already of the subdial, here are two more
Wait... isnt the foot also missing a line in that one? lol
Which is exactly why, whatever Omega chooses to admit publicly I will literally be shocked if they do not replace these dials as a courtesy. Omega is willing to replace SMP dials with a single hour marker out of alignment, they'll replace these.
I’m a little less sure about this than you are, certainly.
The thing is, an hour marker out of alignment is clearly a defect. A Snoopy sub dial that looks different than some previous watches is not really a defect.
That’s sort of like saying that because the Omega on the crown used to be narrow and now it’s not, that the new crowns are all defective.
Here’s a more direct comparison. On older Speedmasters with black dials, the concentric rings in the sub dials were well defined and clearly visible. Towards the end of the 1861 Speedmasters, those rings became very faint, and on some watches were no longer visible to the naked eye. I know because I serviced a bunch like this and took macro photos under the microscope to show the owners that they were still present, just very faint.
One could make all the same arguments about those faint rings that are being made here with regards to it being a defect, but it just isn’t.
Another is the variation in colouring we have seen in sub dials across the Moon to Mars Speedmaster production range. These had considerable variations but were not considered defects either.
In any case, I’ll check tomorrow to see if there’s any literature on this Snoopy issue, but people are generally a bit misinformed about how QC on these watches works. QC is about looking for damages to the dial, dust or dirt, but not what most would consider rather subtle changes to the appearance of a character on a sub dials. If this was going to be a QC issue, it would have been addressed long before the dials were put into the watch. It would have been done on an incoming inspection, and these were likely accepted as good.
Just FYI, here is Omega’s visual inspection requirements…
As outlined in Work Instruction 14, the inspection distance is 30 cm, with the naked eye, and the lighting requirements are quite specific in that the lamp used must have a brightness of 2000 to 2500 LUX and a colour temperature of 5500 KELVIN.
I’m not saying that if someone rants and raves to Omega loud enough, they won’t get a dial swap, but these are not defective in the traditional sense.
I’m a little less sure about this than you are, certainly.
The thing is, an hour marker out of alignment is clearly a defect. A Snoopy sub dial that looks different than some previous watches is not really a defect.
That’s sort of like saying that because the Omega on the crown used to be narrow and now it’s not, that the new crowns are all defective.
Here’s a more direct comparison. On older Speedmasters with black dials, the concentric rings in the sub dials were well defined and clearly visible. Towards the end of the 1861 Speedmasters, those rings became very faint, and on some watches were no longer visible to the naked eye. I know because I serviced a bunch like this and took macro photos under the microscope to show the owners that they were still present, just very faint.
One could make all the same arguments about those faint rings that are being made here with regards to it being a defect, but it just isn’t.
Another is the variation in colouring we have seen in sub dials across the Moon to Mars Speedmaster production range. These had considerable variations but were not considered defects either.
In any case, I’ll check tomorrow to see if there’s any literature on this Snoopy issue, but people are generally a bit misinformed about how QC on these watches works. QC is about looking for damages to the dial, dust or dirt, but not what most would consider rather subtle changes to the appearance of a character on a sub dials. If this was going to be a QC issue, it would have been addressed long before the dials were put into the watch. It would have been done on an incoming inspection, and these were likely accepted as good.
Just FYI, here is Omega’s visual inspection requirements…
As outlined in Work Instruction 14, the inspection distance is 30 cm, with the naked eye, and the lighting requirements are quite specific in that the lamp used must have a brightness of 2000 to 2500 LUX and a colour temperature of 5500 KELVIN.
I’m not saying that if someone rants and raves to Omega loud enough, they won’t get a dial swap, but these are not defective in the traditional sense.That
I’m a little less sure about this than you are, certainly.
The thing is, an hour marker out of alignment is clearly a defect. A Snoopy sub dial that looks different than some previous watches is not really a defect.
That’s sort of like saying that because the Omega on the crown used to be narrow and now it’s not, that the new crowns are all defective.
Here’s a more direct comparison. On older Speedmasters with black dials, the concentric rings in the sub dials were well defined and clearly visible. Towards the end of the 1861 Speedmasters, those rings became very faint, and on some watches were no longer visible to the naked eye. I know because I serviced a bunch like this and took macro photos under the microscope to show the owners that they were still present, just very faint.
One could make all the same arguments about those faint rings that are being made here with regards to it being a defect, but it just isn’t.
Another is the variation in colouring we have seen in sub dials across the Moon to Mars Speedmaster production range. These had considerable variations but were not considered defects either.
In any case, I’ll check tomorrow to see if there’s any literature on this Snoopy issue, but people are generally a bit misinformed about how QC on these watches works. QC is about looking for damages to the dial, dust or dirt, but not what most would consider rather subtle changes to the appearance of a character on a sub dials. If this was going to be a QC issue, it would have been addressed long before the dials were put into the watch. It would have been done on an incoming inspection, and these were likely accepted as good.
Just FYI, here is Omega’s visual inspection requirements…
As outlined in Work Instruction 14, the inspection distance is 30 cm, with the naked eye, and the lighting requirements are quite specific in that the lamp used must have a brightness of 2000 to 2500 LUX and a colour temperature of 5500 KELVIN.
I’m not saying that if someone rants and raves to Omega loud enough, they won’t get a dial swap, but these are not defective in the traditional sense.
I understand where you are coming from. I think a very strong case can be made that these Snoopy dials do not match the image on Omega site, and therefore aren't to spec, likely using a visual distance of one foot / 30cm under the lighting conditions you outline. That seems like a low bar to cross in this case.
I guess that is if Omega sees that image as the basis for their QC checks. I'm going to guess that isn't the basis - there is a near certainty that there is an engineering drawing of the dial and likely of that specific feature that serves as the basis for comparison.
In any case, I checked the Omega Extranet and don't see any specific information on the dial, such as a news item pointing out a defect that can be replaced under warranty. Omega will typically put out an announcement when something like this happens, letting watchmakers know that if you see this particular thing, you can send the item back for a new one. Nothing yet, and I doubt it will come, but who knows.
For what it's worth, a picture of the service dial shows the zipper version:
There's no way to know without ordering one, and you can't order one without returning one, but I wonder if the actual service dial you'd receive would match the photo. And if it did not, would Omega think it's still correct (I suspect they would.)
Nothing but speculation until someone with a Snoopy contacts Omega. Gotta wonder if they aren't already aware of it, annoyed with the watch forums.
