- Posts
- 1,563
- Likes
- 5,666
Robert-Jan
路路#SpeedyTuesday
Living life on the edge.
Steel Omega Speedmaster Apollo 11 50th Anniversary - This Is It!
Living life on the edge.
- Posts
- 1,301
- Likes
- 2,576
queriver
路
- Posts
- 430
- Likes
- 398
ama98
路Looks much better then the gold.
- Posts
- 307
- Likes
- 566
TJH
路Overall, I rather like it except for the seconds sub-dial detail. From the profile picture it looks like the new version of the sapphire crystal has been re-profiled to be less box like which should be an improvement. The 11 o-clock marker is a great touch.
- Posts
- 2,111
- Likes
- 11,265
TLIGuy
路It is a nice looking watch. I think the dial is a very attractive but would like it better with all 3 sub dials being the same. I'm not a buyer so my opinion is mute.
That said, who does Omega consult for their box designs? Where do they get the First Step on the Moon occurred at 02:56:48 GMT? Since I'm a stickler for the exact times of historic NASA events I think this may be incorrect. Most conventional documentation puts Armstrong stepping on the Moon's surface at 02:56:15 GMT and making his statement. After years of research from the Apollo Surface Journal, considered the gold standard of Apollo surface event research, they have arrived at a time of 02:56:17 for Armstrong's first contact with the lunar surface and that his "That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind." statement occurring at 02:56:23.
From the Apollo Surface Journal:
"Based on the times of transmissions prior to 109:24:12, Neil started to say "I'm going to step" at 109:24:12, stepped firmly on the surface at 109:24:17 (02:56:17 GMT), and started "That's one small step" at 109:24:23"
What has never been disputed is the time that Armstrong begins to describe the surface of the Moon which occurs at 02:56:48 GMT which is the time Omega uses on the box infering that is the time Armstrong sets foot on the Moon.
From the Apollo Surface Journal:
109:24:48 (02:56:48 GMT) Armstrong: Yes, the surface is fine and powdery. I can kick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers, like powdered charcoal, to the sole and sides of my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine, sandy particles.
I know this is a petty point but so easily researched. Again, the ASJ admittedly acknowledges the time varies by a few seconds but Omega should have gone with the conventional time of 02:56:15 GMT or just 02:56 GMT. I could be completely wrong, but again the ASJ is the gold standard, and if the ASJ research is correct the time on the box is incorrect.
That said, who does Omega consult for their box designs? Where do they get the First Step on the Moon occurred at 02:56:48 GMT? Since I'm a stickler for the exact times of historic NASA events I think this may be incorrect. Most conventional documentation puts Armstrong stepping on the Moon's surface at 02:56:15 GMT and making his statement. After years of research from the Apollo Surface Journal, considered the gold standard of Apollo surface event research, they have arrived at a time of 02:56:17 for Armstrong's first contact with the lunar surface and that his "That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind." statement occurring at 02:56:23.
From the Apollo Surface Journal:
"Based on the times of transmissions prior to 109:24:12, Neil started to say "I'm going to step" at 109:24:12, stepped firmly on the surface at 109:24:17 (02:56:17 GMT), and started "That's one small step" at 109:24:23"
What has never been disputed is the time that Armstrong begins to describe the surface of the Moon which occurs at 02:56:48 GMT which is the time Omega uses on the box infering that is the time Armstrong sets foot on the Moon.
From the Apollo Surface Journal:
109:24:48 (02:56:48 GMT) Armstrong: Yes, the surface is fine and powdery. I can kick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers, like powdered charcoal, to the sole and sides of my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine, sandy particles.
I know this is a petty point but so easily researched. Again, the ASJ admittedly acknowledges the time varies by a few seconds but Omega should have gone with the conventional time of 02:56:15 GMT or just 02:56 GMT. I could be completely wrong, but again the ASJ is the gold standard, and if the ASJ research is correct the time on the box is incorrect.
- Posts
- 677
- Likes
- 1,274
LeonDeBayonne
路Indeed. It looks like that it is an improvement vs. the 60th anniversary buckle which is far too wide.
- Posts
- 3,368
- Likes
- 6,570
fskywalker
路Looks nice, but too expensive! 
- Posts
- 182
- Likes
- 590
isaac.owen.nz
路It's an abomination, what a hideous thing to celebrate 50 years of watch and space heritage.
Too much going on; gold, grey, black, steel, 11, 9;00 subdial and the case back. Kinda feels like they've just squeezed too much WIS into it.
Too much going on; gold, grey, black, steel, 11, 9;00 subdial and the case back. Kinda feels like they've just squeezed too much WIS into it.
Edited:
- Posts
- 2,152
- Likes
- 3,810
Riviera Paradise
路@Robert-Jan. Great to see you have kept sufficient independence for an unbiased review on the new 50th SS/Gold LE馃榾
One thing that many of us have assumed here on the OF (me included) is that the new 3861 movement is hackable.
As I believe you are new the proud owner of the all gold 50th LE (my preferred of the two 50th LEs) which also has the 3861 movement, can you confirm this is true? I only ask because the implementation of a co-axial escapement would not necessarily mean that the 3861 would become hackable.
Any other experiences you might have had with the new 3861 movement such as timekeeping and operation of the chronograph function馃憤 would be most appreciated!馃榾
Cheers,
RP
One thing that many of us have assumed here on the OF (me included) is that the new 3861 movement is hackable.
As I believe you are new the proud owner of the all gold 50th LE (my preferred of the two 50th LEs) which also has the 3861 movement, can you confirm this is true? I only ask because the implementation of a co-axial escapement would not necessarily mean that the 3861 would become hackable.
Any other experiences you might have had with the new 3861 movement such as timekeeping and operation of the chronograph function馃憤 would be most appreciated!馃榾
Cheers,
RP
- Posts
- 1,563
- Likes
- 5,666
Robert-Jan
路路#SpeedyTuesday@Robert-Jan. Great to see you have kept sufficient independence for an unbiased review on the new 50th SS/Gold LE馃榾
One thing that many of us have assumed here on the OF (me included) is that the new 3861 movement is hackable.
As I believe you are new the proud owner of the all gold 50th LE (my preferred of the two 50th LEs) which also has the 3861 movement, can you confirm this is true? I only ask because the implementation of a co-axial escapement would not necessarily mean that the 3861 would become hackable.
Any other experiences you might have had with the new 3861 movement such as timekeeping and operation of the chronograph function馃憤 would be most appreciated!馃榾
Cheers,
RP
Hi,
The caliber 3861 movement is hackable for sure. This has nothing to do with the use of the Co-axial escapement. As you know (or perhaps not, but I wrote it in my article about the new gold Apollo XI vs the old one), the caliber 3861 has only 50% overlap with the caliber 1861/1863. So it is a different movement, and this includes a hacking feature.
I have no comments on the timekeeping other than that it is much more accurate than any of my other Speedmasters. Officially, the new Speedmaster has the Master Chronometer standards (+- 0 - 5 seconds a day deviation on average) versus the -10/+10 seconds per day deviation on avg of the caliber 1861 (this is what Omega shared with me).
- Posts
- 907
- Likes
- 1,293
mancio
路All the live photo have this tone of color on Bezel and dial.
Any photo of this watch with direct sunlight??
- Posts
- 839
- Likes
- 3,026
corn18
路Why did they put the wrong quote on the back?
- Posts
- 65
- Likes
- 83
Skyrider01
路Why did they put the wrong quote on the back?
According to Armstrong, he did say the "a" in the quote, but it was not heard over the radio.
Lots of articles on this controversy.
- Posts
- 1,563
- Likes
- 5,666
Robert-Jan
路路#SpeedyTuesdayAre they showing the wacth in a purple room or something?
All the live photo have this tone of color on Bezel and dial.
Any photo of this watch with direct sunlight??
No, the event was inside and the lightning far from ideal. At first we were told we could not take images, orders from Swatch Group management, but they decided otherwise on the spot. So nobody was really prepared...
- Posts
- 2,152
- Likes
- 3,810
Riviera Paradise
路Hi,
The caliber 3861 movement is hackable for sure. This has nothing to do with the use of the Co-axial escapement. As you know (or perhaps not, but I wrote it in my article about the new gold Apollo XI vs the old one), the caliber 3861 has only 50% overlap with the caliber 1861/1863. So it is a different movement, and this includes a hacking feature.
I have no comments on the timekeeping other than that it is much more accurate than any of my other Speedmasters. Officially, the new Speedmaster has the Master Chronometer standards (+- 0 - 5 seconds a day deviation on average) versus the -10/+10 seconds per day deviation on avg of the caliber 1861 (this is what Omega shared with me).
Sorry for not doing my research馃う I read both the 50th LE articles, but forgot to read the comparison between the 50th Anniversary Gold and the original 1969 model.
Just one more quick question, please. Did Omega give you any indication as to whether the 3861 caliber will undergo NASA certification?
- Posts
- 2,111
- Likes
- 11,265
TLIGuy
路Why did they put the wrong quote on the back?
Again - From the great Apollo Surface Journal research
Armstrong: That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind. (Long Pause)
At the time of the mission, the world heard Neil say "That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind". As Andrew Chaikin details in A Man on the Moon, after the mission, Neil said that he had intended to say 'one small step for a man' and believed that he had done so. However, he also agreed that the 'a' didn't seem to be audible in the recordings. The important point is that the world had no problem understanding his meaning. However, over the decades, people interested in details of the mission - including your editor - have listened repeatedly to the recordings, without hearing any convincing evidence of the 'a'. In 2006, with a great deal of attendant media attention, journalist/ entrepreneur Peter Shann Ford claimed to have located the 'a' in the waveform of Neil's transmission. Subsequently, more rigorous analyses of the transmission were undertaken by people with professional experience with audio waveforms and, most importantly, audio spectrograms. None of these analyses support Ford's conclusion. The transcription used above honors Neil's intent.
- Posts
- 839
- Likes
- 3,026
corn18
路Again - From the great Apollo Surface Journal research
Armstrong: That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind. (Long Pause)
At the time of the mission, the world heard Neil say "That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind". As Andrew Chaikin details in A Man on the Moon, after the mission, Neil said that he had intended to say 'one small step for a man' and believed that he had done so. However, he also agreed that the 'a' didn't seem to be audible in the recordings. The important point is that the world had no problem understanding his meaning. However, over the decades, people interested in details of the mission - including your editor - have listened repeatedly to the recordings, without hearing any convincing evidence of the 'a'. In 2006, with a great deal of attendant media attention, journalist/ entrepreneur Peter Shann Ford claimed to have located the 'a' in the waveform of Neil's transmission. Subsequently, more rigorous analyses of the transmission were undertaken by people with professional experience with audio waveforms and, most importantly, audio spectrograms. None of these analyses support Ford's conclusion. The transcription used above honors Neil's intent.
So it isn't what he said. 馃ぎ
- Posts
- 1,563
- Likes
- 5,666
Robert-Jan
路路#SpeedyTuesdayThanks @Robert-Jan for that quick reply!馃憤馃榾
Sorry for not doing my research馃う I read both the 50th LE articles, but forgot to read the comparison between the 50th Anniversary Gold and the original 1969 model.
Just one more quick question, please. Did Omega give you any indication as to whether the 3861 caliber will undergo NASA certification?
Hi,
No. And NASA doesn鈥檛 certify watches, they qualify watches (there鈥檚 a difference in that). So I don鈥檛 know, the regular Moonwatch is not out of production and uses the caliber 1861 (which was also never qualified, but I guess the differences with the 861 are so small that this is fine). If there will be a moment in the future where the Moonwatch might also get a movement upgrade, you could debate whether it is deemed necessary to do so. The METAS certification process is pretty rugged....
- Posts
- 1,563
- Likes
- 5,666
Robert-Jan
路路#SpeedyTuesdaySo it isn't what he said. 馃ぎ
Very respectful to Neil that they used the phrase that he intended to say though ;-)
- Posts
- 2,152
- Likes
- 3,810
Riviera Paradise
路Hi,
No. And NASA doesn鈥檛 certify watches, they qualify watches (there鈥檚 a difference in that). So I don鈥檛 know, the regular Moonwatch is not out of production and uses the caliber 1861 (which was also never qualified, but I guess the differences with the 861 are so small that this is fine). If there will be a moment in the future where the Moonwatch might also get a movement upgrade, you could debate whether it is deemed necessary to do so. The METAS certification process is pretty rugged....
Cheers,
RP
Similar threads
- Posts
- 6
- Views
- 537
- Posts
- 1
- Views
- 821
- Posts
- 0
- Views
- 201
- Posts
- 10
- Views
- 3K
