Very helpful info in the first paragraph. Explains a lot of the "just get the real one" comments that I hate. If someone's been burned on servicing they would be more likely to dislike the piece. Thanks!
And I have a growing addiction for the Speedmaster Date! Such an under appreciated Speedy.

 

You know that you can multi-quote and edit your posts, right? No need to triple post when you're essentially saying the same thing in all three posts.

The hate for the Reduced comes from the fact that it's not a real mechanical chronograph movement, it's a modular one. It's not even a 7750, which is available in watches much lower grade than Omega. At least, that's where my hate comes from.

The 27 CHRO 12 (Lemania 2310, Omega 321, later the 861 and 1861 currently used) is a very historic movement, and one that's been used by many iconic watch manufactures like Breguet, Patek Philippe, and Vacheron Constantin. It's an extremely reliable movement for something developed and produced with very small changes since the 40s.

The Speedmaster Pro is the Porsche 911 of the watch world. Most people want one at some point, and the Reduced is the Boxster.

 

While I agree with ALL that,
Some people just love the Boxters & think the 911 is a "me too" choice.
Also, I know the movements and I realize the reduced uses a stacked movement. That's why the pushers and crown are off center. However, I have read that for someone who likes having a center-seconds hand, this means the chrono hand can be constantly run as a seconds hand with very little wear to the movement. I've heard that is not the case with the Speedmaster Pro & that the chrono hand should never be used as a center seconds hand for constant use. If that is incorrect, my mistake. If it is though, it is another reason some may opt for the Boxster instead.
And don't misunderstand me, I love the Moon Watch.
It's certainly the Speedmaster for me.
I just feel like it's not the best watch for everyone.

And I'll EDIT THIS post instead of posting an afterthought since it seems to be frowned upon.

There are those people who would like the reduced for two simple reasons.
It looks similar to the Professional BUT they do not want a manual wind watch.
I can't imagine anyone who only wants an automatic choosing a manual wind.

 

I own a 28-year old Appollo XI, 20th anniversary Speedmaster Professional, and a Speedmaster reduced. I enjoy them equally. I have heard just about every opinion as to the Speedmaster Professional being somehow "better". I've never kept track, but it wouldn't surprise me if those who don't own a Speedmaster reduced are the ones who tout the Professional as being somehow "better". And that the Professional is somehow more of a pleasure to own than the reduced. If they don't own one of each, how would they know?

 

I am with the fink on this.

I share this opinion and also think less of the modular movement which rather smacks of expediency to me. I had a dynamic chrono with one and it predictably cost an arm and a leg to service. The setting lag these suffer from is also a drawback. They do look good but to me they are the economy Speedmaster

ps I have a 911 so you were right on that score too.

 

Who couldn't like this reduced?

 

But, do you own a reduced? If you don't, then we'll put it down to your speaking for yourself. While we're at it, why don't we start kicking the Rolex Daytona which uses the el Primero movement as being an "economy" Daytona. And the Breitling which uses the modular movement. The Omega Speedmaster reduced is a fine watch, and a pleasure to those of us who speak from a point of view of actual ownership!

 

You should really look up the movement in the Dynamic chronograph mate...

 

I think you will find that the same modular movement that you hate so much has been used by some iconic watch manufacturers like AP, Girard Perregaux and others. Do you hate them too?

 

Since I'm still definitely in the "under 60" club by a long shot, I can safely say that I don't like it. Two tone is a very dated look.

 

I think it's a variety of factors. The debateable?? higher service costs, the not as nice proportions on the sub dials, the perception it's a cheaper watch, and the perceived lack of history. Notice all of these can be debated as points, but most of those points lean towards the pro as being better.

At the end of the day the reduced is a good watch and some of the colorways are truly great and sorely lacking in the professional line up.

 

Dated? Dated? You haven't been looking. Put down your white cane, and look again! I can't believe some of the garish multi-colour stuff on the market today. Calculated to shock is the way I see it.

 

You'll find that those brands are mocked as well for using a DD module, just as the Reduced is given a pass by many for seemingly ridiculous reasons.

It's lazy watchmaking.

 

I guess you don't own a reduced, then. I can understand your bias. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

 

I agree the reduced is a good watch in it's own right and is a good alternative for people with smaller wrists and those who find winding a watch every day a chore. As for servicing costs, I'm sure Al is on record stating that the cost is no more than servicing a 861.
As for the pro being better, do you mean better timekeeping, better reliability or just better because it's been around longer?
Talking about reliability, I wear a 30 year old watch with a DD chrono module and the only issue I have with it is the battery only lasts 2 years.

 

Why would I need to? I have owned the 7750-based Date, and couldn't stand the size. It ended up being a better size for my wife.

 

Of course I am speaking for myself, I could hardly do otherwise could I? I personally don't rate the early Daytona (they gave up the Zenith movement years ago by the way) or many Breitblings so you got that right too. As I noted above, I have owned a modular movement Omega so am not making up my lack of love to be awkward or contrary. The first 2 independents who looked at it couldn't fix the chrono problem it exhibited, it took an expensive trip to STS to finally sort it out. If you are happy to spend £500 for every service then I guess there is no issue.

 

Omega doesn't distinguish between servicing an 1861 based chronograph, a 7750 based chronograph, or one with a DD module - in fact all mechanical chronographs are the same price. You don't need me to confirm that, as it's clearly stated on Omega's web site.

If you are fine with paying what Omega asks for service, then indeed there is no difference in servicing costs. If you prefer to use an independent watchmaker, you will find that many (myself included, and I assume Canuck also since he has repeatedly said he sent it to Omega for service the last time) don't service them. Those that do sometimes don't service the chronograph module, but simply remove it and service the base movement, so not a proper job really. So what it clear is that you typically have fewer choices for servicing the watch.

The movement does have some things about it that I would not like, such as the pushers being on a different plane than the crown, the issues that can happen with backlash, etc. Generally speaking it is my opinion that a fully integrated chronograph is a better option, and if you want a reliable and accurate automatic chronograph, anything with a 7750 based movement will be an excellent choice, and one I would choose over a modular chronograph personally.

If people love the reduced or not makes no difference to me, but I do feel it's important that people understand what they are getting when they buy one. More information is better than less, and you don't have to be an owner to have an opinion.

Cheers, Al

 

Are these the ones also called speed master day/ speed master daydate?

 

Slightly different. Although I could see a day/date name being applied to an MK 40