Community Stories

Stainless steel v alloy/aluminium / copper / magnesium 2292 Spitfire pilots watch

G
Posts
1
Likes
0
Hi guys, please excuse my ignorance, I understand the stainless steel later version is rarer but are both watches still as impressive as each other. I am hopefully going to get
one.
Thanks
 
sathomasga
Posts
571
Likes
1,034
I assume you're refering to the Omega 6B/159 watches. If that's correct, I believe the very earliest examples (1942) were delivered in stainless steel cases, but very soon (late 1942 through the end of the war) Omega switched to alloy cases. In 1956, surplus watches from the war were re-cased by the Ministry of Defence (in larger cases, 36mm) and re-issued to the RAF. So the earliest stainless steel versions are indeed rather rare, but the 1956 stainless steel versions less so.

As to your question, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "impressive." All versions used the same 30T2-SC movement, so the internals are identical. The alloy cases are somewhat more fragile, but I do wear mine (technically a Royal Navy FAA HS↑8 insted of a RAF 6B/159) without concern.

If you are considering purchasing one, all the standard cautions re: vintage watches apply, perhaps even more considering the value of provenance for these watches.
 
3
Posts
16
Likes
0
I believe there were 2 versions of the 2292. The English one is a durLumin case, of which I understand there were 300 purchased by the British as they got them for a better price than stainless cases. An alloy of magnesium, copper and zinc I believe, they are a 1930s case, with sweeping lugs, very much a leftover from deco times, and the material itself was invented for use in the zeppelin industry. The material hardens with time, and also becomes more brittle, hence so many being damaged when people tried to remove the fixed brass pins to change the straps.
I understand there was an American case with the same 2292 reference number, but I do not understand why this would be. They were stainless apparently, and a slightly different stamp on the rear case indicated this fact. I love the duralumin version, and own 3. I think once the 300 were used a Dennison case was used, brass with chrome plating, and these were issued.
After the war the remaining movements were put into the cases we now refer to as the 6b/159, I am told, and sold, but I have been told that people could but just the movements if they so wished. The dirty dozen watch I own is a 30t2, where as the 2292 are 30t2sc movements, as a sweep seconds hand is far easier to see and use for accurate military activities. This is my understanding, but I may well be wrong .
 
3
Posts
16
Likes
0
3 30t2sc lover
I believe there were 2 versions of the 2292. The English one is a durLumin case, of which I understand there were 300 purchased by the British as they got them for a better price than stainless cases. An alloy of magnesium, copper and zinc I believe, they are a 1930s case, with sweeping lugs, very much a leftover from deco times, and the material itself was invented for use in the zeppelin industry. The material hardens with time, and also becomes more brittle, hence so many being damaged when people tried to remove the fixed brass pins to change the straps.
I understand there was an American case with the same 2292 reference number, but I do not understand why this would be. They were stainless apparently, and a slightly different stamp on the rear case indicated this fact. I love the duralumin version, and own 3. I think once the 300 were used a Dennison case was used, brass with chrome plating, and these were issued.
After the war the remaining movements were put into the cases we now refer to as the 6b/159, I am told, and sold, but I have been told that people could but just the movements if they so wished. The dirty dozen watch I own is a 30t2, where as the 2292 are 30t2sc movements, as a sweep seconds hand is far easier to see and use for accurate military activities. This is my understanding, but I may well be wrong .
3000, not 300.
 
sathomasga
Posts
571
Likes
1,034
3 30t2sc lover
An alloy of magnesium, copper and zinc I believe
For what it's worth, here's the description from my Extract from the Archives:
ScreensOAs9rSz@2x.webp
 
3
Posts
16
Likes
0
sathomasga sathomasga
For what it's worth, here's the description from my Extract from the Archives:
ScreensOAs9rSz@2x.webp

Perfect, I think I missed aly out, which is the main contribution.
Does it say anything about spitfires? I always thought these were bomber timepieces, with the spitfire pilots having the extra
sathomasga sathomasga
For what it's worth, here's the description from my Extract from the Archives:
ScreensOAs9rSz@2x.webp

Thanks very much. I think I forgot to include aluminium which is the main ingredient.
Does it mention spitfires, I thought the 2292 was a navigator timepiece, with the spitfire watch having a hack facility, but there are a lot of posts online which describe the 2292 as a spitfire pilots watch, either for romantic embellishment or simply by mistake.
 
sathomasga
Posts
571
Likes
1,034
3 30t2sc lover
Does it mention spitfires, I thought the 2292 was a navigator timepiece, with the spitfire watch having a hack facility, but there are a lot of posts online which describe the 2292 as a spitfire pilots watch, either for romantic embellishment or simply by mistake.
The Extract from the Archives is specific to a particular watch, so it only references that watch. I've added a screen capture of the entire document below. The watch I own was issued to the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm rather than the Royal Air Force. I believe there may be a few differences between the HS↑8 and 6B/159 UK 2292 watches, but the only significant one (other than the case back engraving) is the use of spring bars rather than fixed bars. There has been some lively discussion on mwrforum.net that suggests the possibility that not all HS↑8 watches had spring bars and not all 6B/159 watches had fixed bars. My understanding is that both watches were standard issue for pilots and navigators of the respective services, regardless of the particular aircraft they flew. If, by "spitfire," you mean the earlier CK 2129 with the Weems rotating bezel, I'm afraid I have no information to offer.

Omega HS↑8 RSM 2.webp Screentii0TKRA@2x.webp
 
3
Posts
16
Likes
0
As I understand it, the fixed bars were a requirement for the services. Many 2292 do have spring bars now as the lugs have broken iron been shortened to accommodate spring bars so a greater choice of strap may be used. Unbroken examples are scarce and the shape is delicate and quite beautiful. They taper to a thin and therefore, sadly, breakable size, especially as duralumin gets brittle with age.
 
sathomasga
Posts
571
Likes
1,034
3 30t2sc lover
As I understand it, the fixed bars were a requirement for the services.
The experts on mwrforum would disagree, in particular for the Royal Navy. I'm not sure it's possible to say definitely at this point, but the HS↑8 that I own has the alloy case, intact lugs, and Omega's archives confirm that its movement, at least, was sold to the British military. (Note that all five of the linked posts are from different folks, not the same person posting repeatedly.)
 
3
Posts
16
Likes
0
I am almost always wrong. It is my consistency that is my best feature.
You have a lovely watch, full of history, and the lugs are perhaps the least important aspect. I have intact lugs, broken lugs, and very damaged in need of repair lugs, but all are 2292 and therefore wonderful in my humble opinion. Enjoy your watch. It is a beauty.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...