Hello All

I was curious to get OF feedback regarding preference of the Speedmaster 145.012 321 vs the 145.022 861.

In a perfect world, if both were available and all else equal, it would appear that the 145.012 321 would be the preferred choice.

Part of what makes me pose the question is that on the Speedmaster101.com site, they dedicate a page to "why 145.022". One compelling argument they make is that the 861 movement is more well-known to watch repair shops and parts are more readily available. However, given the increasing interest in vintage Omegas, would that be enough to tip the scale in the 145.022's favour?

More specifically, if you found a 145.022 which clears the specs, should it be considered or would it be better to keep searching for the 145.012?

Thanks

 

I think you will find that the only model that fits the bill of "checking all the boxes" for most people is the 68 transitional, where it has all the best features of the earlier models (applied metal logo, tear drop chrono hand, DON bezel, step dial, etc) combined with the easier (and cheaper) serviceability of the 861. Beyond that though, I believe that most here find the 321 models more desirable because they are more aesthetically appealing.

 

Man, if you can, go for a 145.012. I believe these 321 pre-Moon watches (along with earlier models) look much better (DON bezel, long indexes, applied metal logo, seahorse caseback) but also because of the historical point of view

 

All things being equal, it goes:

145.012 - 145.022(transitional) - 145.022(DoN) - 145.022(DNN)

 

Obviously my "likes" tell you I love my '68

 

Can any watchmaker on the forum confirm that the 321 is more difficult to service than the 861, parts availability aside?

 

@Nevada06
Re: "...if you found a 145.022 which clears the specs, should it be considered or would it be better to keep searching for the 145.012?"
It really depends on what you're looking for and what your budget is. But, to answer your question, I personally would't pass on an all original, good to great condition 145.022 (68, 69 - 71), even if my "grail" was a cal. 321.

 

A thread from a few years ago about the 321 vs 861

https://omegaforums.net/threads/speedmaster-calibers-321-vs-861-vs-1861.6563/

 

What I prefer about the 321 is the fact that they were worn on the moon, the applied logo which the 861 doesn't have (excluding the transitional), the Breguet overcoil, the column wheel etc. but also the dial: The dial is subdivided for measuring 1/5 of a second even on modern Speedys. The 321 beats 5 times per second but the 861 beats at 6 times per second which doesn't fit the dial subdivisions. Might sound silly but it irritates me that the dial is "wrong" even on the transitional.

 

Buy both of them ))

 

+1

 

All the uk repairers I have used charge exactly the same to service a 321 as a 861 so I am not sure why there should be any preference for the later movement. I guess there are a few 321 parts which now hard to get but as long as you don’t get conned into buying a paper clip watch I can’t see why you would want an 861 over a 321 on serviceability grounds personally.

Given the choice I would take the 012 over the 022 and would go as far to say that rather than being the optimal high water mark Pre-Moon, the Transitional model represents the beginning of the decontenting process to make the watch cheaper to make. Still the optimal 861 maybe but not the optimal Pre-Moon. IMHO of course.

 

For me personally the "best" Speedy is the 145.012-67/68 because the 105.012 has push-in pushers and not screw-in. Thereafter it went a little down-hill although they're still good of course......

 

As far as I know the 105-012 CB cases have push in pushers, the 105.012 HF cases have screw in pushers.

 

It‘s true that the last 105.012s had screw-in pushers but I don‘t think it‘s confined to a specific sub-reference, I thought it was a bit random untill the 145.012 came along.

 

It sounds like you are saying the push in type are better. Not something I had thought about before, what are the advantages or disadvantage of each type?

 

I wouldn’t sleep on the Straight Writing versions as they’re much rarer than a standards DNN 145.022.

Because they essentially look the same from 71 through the eighties I don’t necessarily think that the 71-78s will become overly more collectable. I would therefore make the list more granular.

145.012 > 145.022 (transitional) > 145.022 (DON) > 145.022-69 (Straight writing) > 145.022-69 (DNN).............. > 145.022-71-78 (DNN)

I think there’s a big drop off from the 69 DNN to the 71-78 due to caseback and lack of distinguishing elements in terms of collectibility.

 

FIFY

145.012 > 145.022-68 (transitional) > 145.022-69 (220 DNN) > 145.022-69 (DON) > 145.022-69 (Straight writing) > 145.022-69 (DNN).............. > 145.022-71-74 (Step Dial) > 145.022-74-78

 

No, I think the screw-in types are better. I'd have preferred the crown-tube to also be screwed but they never were in Speedy's. It's just a better engineering solution I think than press-fit and much easier to replace.

 

Good call - agree with this addition.