1. The discussion of vintage part availability reminded me of a question I've had for some time: how does Omega make Speedmasters? Manufacturing technology has changed a lot since the 861 or 1861 was designed and introduced; is Omega building all these movements and part supply with decades-old techniques and equipment? Or have they updated their production techniques without changing the design? Are there subtle but detectable changes in watch parts or finishing as a result of updated production methods?

 

Mechanical watch technology really hasn't changed for centuries. While some parts and work can be done more efficiently by machine, certain things still need to be done by human hands.

 

The 321 had some changes.

The 861 got the brake changed in 71 from steel to deleran plastic. Then got an extra jewel about 88 and then admitted it had 18 jewels about a year or so later. Then the 1861 came out.

 

I think OP is asking about how the watches are put together and whether that has changed over the decades... I was curious about this too not long ago wondering how many watches Omega produces these days and how much of that is automated. Must be a fair bit, but I have no clue.

 

Is it wrong to assume that most of the process is automated?

 

Couldn't this thread be a question about all modern Omega calibers instead of ONLY the Speedmaster?

 

Yes.

 

I understand your point, but the Speedmaster Professional is an interesting case study in the production of watches - it (and its movement etc) has remained more or less the same for the past 50 years while design and manufacturing technology has changed radically. Newer movements may be designed with automated manufacturing in mind, so the OP’s question about how this specific old design fits into a modern production line really does have merit

 

Okay, how about the Rolex Submariner or the Piaget Altiplano? Those designs have existed since the 50's and still use similar calibers.

 

Are we sure he hasn’t started similar threads at the Rolex or Piaget forums?

 

Also, I know nothing of the Submariner but the case and materials have changed quite a bit (though more so recently) and I thought there were some more substantial changes to the movements? Or were they just a jewel here, a change of metal there like the (1)861?

 

Don't know - I was just pointing out that there are other examples of nearly the same situation besides Speedmasters.

( I know - whoda thunket? )

I realize this could cause a seizure among certain types though, so maybe I'll drop the subject before I injure one of them.

 

Or the Seiko 6800 ultra-thin movements as well, they've been in production since 1969. Granted they've taken on better finishing techniques in that time.

 

My son and I were discussing a similar subject over dinner tonight. We were wondering if Omega would ever consider upgrading the parts in the 1861 to include an Si14 balance wheel and hairspring, which could improve it's resistance to magnetism and maybe also improve the poise errors in timing with different positions. They could call it the 18610 movement, or something like 8861.

 

The sub has undergone substantial changes to the movement. Whereas the 861 afaik has 1 material change in the brake and added a jewel at a pivot point. The 1861 was basically a change in how it was finished. The others that are basically unchanged are not exactly high volume...

 

These are the outward/visible changes, but there have been others that collectors would be oblivious to for the most part. Watch companies (the good ones) will be constantly updating their movements for quality improvements, so Omega publishes lists of mandatory replacement parts for movements, and these lists are updated as parts are improved in quality or functionality. To give you an idea of how much this happens, the document that lists changes to the 550, 560, and 750 series was updated with improved parts as recently as 2016...these are movements that have not been in production as complete movements for decades, but their parts are still being improved...

The answer is yes...I think. Since I've never directly witnessed the production of this particular movement, I can't say what exactly has driven the changes in the movement - is it a new production technique requiring a subtle change in design, or is the small change in design requiring a new production technique? Either way the only reason to make the type of changes I've seen is for cost savings.

Here is an example - this is a brand new still in the package hour recording wheel, part 1788:



This is the wheel that is under the dial, and that the 12 hour counting hand attaches to - the post is on the other side of the wheel and on this side you see the cam that the hour hammer contacts to reset the wheel. That cam is permanently fixed to the wheel, but there was a time when the cam could be replaced as a separate part. Here is an older version of the 1788 (this one had the post broken off when the watch was dropped):



Here you can see that the cam is held in place by a screw, so when it wears out, the cam could be unscrewed and replaced, rather than replacing the whole wheel. Now if the cam wears out, the entire wheel is replaced - more expensive for the watch owner, but now Omega only has to stock one part instead of three (wheel, cam, and screw). Was this driven by a manufacturing process change, or by simple cost cutting? Hard to say, but certainly changes like this are made frequently in movements.

Cheers, Al

 

To the OPs question: I could imagine the modern movements are manufactured something like this (this is a look at certification)...

 

In a video I watched recently, produced in the 1930s for the Illinois Watch Co., it was indicated that in the production of what is (compared to a Speedmaster), a simple watch. There were 200+ machines involved in producing the parts for a simple Illinois pocket watch. So I guess you could say that production methods have changed, a lot! And probably even change during the production runs of any particular movement. Hard to give specific answers to this.

 

So, where's point 2 and 3?

 

Thanks, all, and in particular Al for your info. Sorry for being absent (I posted the question from a plane, then the WiFi died for the rest of the flight).

I was interested in the general question of: if a particular item is produced without substantial changes for decades, do they continue doing it in the same way, with the same tools and equipment, or do they update? For the kinds of mills and lathes involved in machining watch parts, there are modern replacements and equivalents for the production equipment, but it gets harder and harder to replace or repair old machinery, and replacing one method or mechanism with another can result in visible changes. I would guess that if one had to build a new factory to produce the parts in a classic caliber movement, it would be noticeably different from the previous one unless you went to painstaking effort to copy the exact output of the previous processes.

The Speedmaster and its movement is an example I'm familiar with of a watch which has been produced in a very similar and consistent models for 50 years. I'm sure there's other examples I don't know as much about which might also be illustrative.

Presumably, if you were designing fabrication of a watch or its movement today, you would make substantial use of CNC machining and modern techniques; see, for example, this video on Breitling case manufacture. Does Omega make Speedmasters with such technology, carefully tuned to be as similar as possible to the production in the 60's? Or are they still using half-century old equipment? Or something else?

As to points 2 and 3: I don't have any idea why that 1. is there. I noticed after it was posted and then couldn't figure out how to edit it away: there's no control on the post editor to give you a numbered list (that I can see), so how it happened? [shrug]