Straight from the horses mouth: the caliber 321 speedy will be made in SS

Slim Pickens · Jan 5, 2020

Hi everyone,

I don’t post much on here but like some of You once the 321 caliber was announced I became giddy. My wife will say I don’t need any more watches but we all know this is a sickness .
anyway I’ve been scouring the Internet for any info on the 321 being produced in SS as the already announced Platinum is expensive and in limited quantities. Well for those that know Teddy On YouTube, he did a recent interview with the CEO of Omega at the Bond Seamaster 2020 watch reveal and He confirmed they’re working on a SS version (NOT limited production ) 321!

Link to Interview:

So hopefully we have some more official news closer to Baselworld or SIHH this year.

Foo2rama · Jan 5, 2020

What is the time point in the video when he says this?

Evitzee · Jan 5, 2020

I don't think it was any secret that Omega was going to produce a steel version 321 this year. It is supposedly constrained by production ability, but that can always be worked on, and it will not be anywhere close to the standard version price wise. Most expect it to be in the $12k to $15k range. Maybe we will be surprised and they will discontinue the 1861 version and have a 3861 standard model and a 321 model. But the 321 version will not be cheap, Omega won't be leaving money on the table.

Evitzee · Jan 5, 2020

Foo2rama
What is the time point in the video when he says this?

12 minute mark

Slim Pickens · Jan 5, 2020

Foo2rama
What is the time point in the video when he says this?

Around the 11:52 mark

Slim Pickens · Jan 5, 2020

Evitzee
I don't think it was any secret that Omega was going to produce a steel version 321 this year. It is supposedly constrained by production ability, but that can always be worked on, and it will not be anywhere close to the standard version price wise. Most expect it to be in the $12k to $15k range. Maybe we will be surprised and they will discontinue the 1861 version and have a 3861 standard model and a 321 model. But the 321 version will not be cheap.

Agreed...but most only “assumed” a steel version would be produced. However, when only the platinum version was announced, many (including myself) were disappointed as We thought Omega would make the historic movement only a limited production and say “forget the masses”. So assumptions aside, it’s nice to have official confirmation as I have only heard speculation up until this video/interview.

JwRosenthal · Jan 5, 2020

So forgive my ignorance, but why would a new 321 be more desirable than the current movement. I get the excitement of them reissuing a movement akin to that which has been out of production for years, but what validates the premium over the current model other than speculative collector value?

Evitzee · Jan 5, 2020

JwRosenthal
So forgive my ignorance, but why would a new 321 be more desirable than the current movement. I get the excitement of them reissuing a movement akin to that which has been out of production for years, but what validates the premium over the current model other than speculative collector value?

Because many people have been conditioned to believe that ONLY a 321 powered Speedmaster can be truly called a moonwatch. The 861 line are just moonwatch wannabes and lack the requisite DNA. To me it's a silly argument but people are passionate about it. I wouldn't pay much premium for one but others will. This is an often irrational, emotion driven hobby that a company will exploit. Old man Hayek would have been all over this.

wsfarrell · Jan 6, 2020

Evitzee
Because many people have been conditioned to believe that ONLY a 321 powered Speedmaster can be truly called a moonwatch. The 861 line are just moonwatch wannabes and lack the requisite DNA. To me it's a silly argument but people are passionate about it. I wouldn't pay much premium for one but others will. This is an often irrational, emotion driven hobby that a company will exploit. Old man Hayek would have been all over this.

Problem is, Omega could (and should) have put the 321 in the 50th anniversary watch---that would have been a killer. I believe for reasons of greed they decided to split them: one watch has a cool dial and caseback, the other has the updated 321 movement. I can't imagine there will be a ton of interest in the updated 321 movement by itself.

Slim Pickens · Jan 6, 2020

JwRosenthal
So forgive my ignorance, but why would a new 321 be more desirable than the current movement. I get the excitement of them reissuing a movement akin to that which has been out of production for years, but what validates the premium over the current model other than speculative collector value?

Along with what others have said the 321 was a beautiful movement that harkens back to the days when watchmakers truly put their heart and soul into creating something of beauty. The haute horlogerie in the 321 is akin to that of Breguet and Vacheron...that along with the fact that it is considered THE Moonwatch and you have emotion in many buyers (including myself) that are prepared to write a check for one (within reason of course ). Knowing that the new 3861 in the recent anniversary movements are technologically superior to the 321 as far as manual winding timepieces are concerned.

Screwbacks · Jan 6, 2020

Is there any news as to the take up of the platinum 321s, whether or not it is fully sold or reserved?

Anent status of this platinum321s, then the future steel version could be something to await for. 😉 ::psy::

STANDY · Jan 6, 2020

Slim Pickens
Agreed...but most only “assumed” a steel version would be produced. However, when only the platinum version was announced, many (including myself) were disappointed as We thought Omega would make the historic movement only a limited production and say “forget the masses”. So assumptions aside, it’s nice to have official confirmation as I have only heard speculation up until this video/interview.

This wasn’t the first time it was mentioned a SS version was to be made, nor the first time a SS version would be made that wasn’t a LE. All in the above video has been known for nearly 9-10 months via Fratello postings....

tyrantlizardrex · Jan 6, 2020

JwRosenthal
So forgive my ignorance, but why would a new 321 be more desirable than the current movement. I get the excitement of them reissuing a movement akin to that which has been out of production for years, but what validates the premium over the current model other than speculative collector value?

It’s worth extra internet cool points.

Wryfox · Jan 6, 2020

Slim Pickens
Knowing that the new 3861 in the recent anniversary movements are technologically superior to the 321 as far as manual winding timepieces are concerned.

Yet the 321 was good enough for Space, with humans in it.😗

STANDY · Jan 6, 2020

My want for a V8 dwindled once the carburettor disappeared so I see the passion for old school stuff. Marketing master stroke if it’s anymore than a standard SS 1861

padders · Jan 6, 2020

Other than cool points, which is as good a reason as any, I have found one other reason why the 321 is better than the 861/1861 in the Moonwatch. It is debatable whether it is a good reason, but if you want your chrono hand to hit the 4 sub-second marks on the std Moonwatch dial, you need a movement that runs at 5 or 10Hz, the 861/1861 runs at 6Hz so only ever hits the full second mark, it misses the rest by design. They fix this on other Omega models by utilising either 2 intermediate marks for the 1861 and 3 marks for the 3313 and 930X/990X movements which run at 8Hz (as used in the Speedmaster '57/Racing) but the 1861 Moonwatch still uses an incorrect 4 mark pattern. See below for a comparison:

Current 1861 Moonwatch, wrong number of marks for 6Hz movement frequency:

omega-speedmaster-moonwatch-31130423001005-1-product-zoom.jpeg

Silver Snoopy using correct 2 intermediate marks for the 1861

Speedmaster '57 using 9300 8Hz movement with correct 3 intermediate marks.

omega-speedmaster-speedmaster-57-omega-co-axial-chronograph-41-5-mm-33110425101002-l.jpeg

So much for the Speedmaster Moonwatch being a precision timing instrument, it hasn't been able to accurately time to a finer increment than 1 second since the 1969 movement change 😉

There you have it. If you want a watch with the std Moonswatch dial which can accurately measure elapsed time to within a quarter of a second, you need the 321, the 861/1861 are only giving an approximation. QED.

JwRosenthal · Jan 6, 2020

padders
Other than cool points, which is as good a reason as any, I have found one other reason why the 321 is better than the 861/1861 in the Moonwatch. It is debatable whether it is a good reason, but if you want your chrono hand to hit the 4 sub-second marks on the std Moonwatch dial, you need a movement that runs at 5 or 10Hz, the 861/1861 runs at 6Hz so only ever hits the full second mark, it misses the rest by design. They fix this on other Omega models by utilising either 2 intermediate marks for the 1861 and 3 marks for the 3313 and 930X/990X movements which run at 8Hz (as used in the Speedmaster '57/Racing) but the 1861 Moonwatch still uses an incorrect 4 mark pattern. See below for a comparison:

Current 1861 Moonwatch, wrong number of marks for 6Hz movement frequency:

Silver Snoopy using correct 2 intermediate marks for the 1861

Speedmaster '57 using 9300 8Hz movement with correct 3 intermediate marks.

So much for the Speedmaster Moonwatch being a precision timing instrument, it hasn't been able to accurately time to a finer increment than 1 second since the 1969 movement change 😉

There you have it. If you want a watch with the std Moonswatch dial which can accurately measure elapsed time to within a quarter of a second, you need the 321, the 861/1861 are only giving an approximation. QED.

So the arguement of “only a watch with a 321 is a “real” moonwatch” didn’t do it for me as the reissued movement is not an “original” 321 as would have been taken to space, it’s a new movement made like the old one.
The answer padders just gave- that I can understand. A bit more anal retentive than I would ever need for analog time keeping, but I get it.
Thanks for that explanation.

dscoogs · Jan 6, 2020

padders
...
So much for the Speedmaster Moonwatch being a precision timing instrument, it hasn't been able to accurately time to a finer increment than 1 second since the 1969 movement change 😉

There you have it. If you want a watch with the std Moonswatch dial which can accurately measure elapsed time to within a quarter of a second, you need the 321, the 861/1861 are only giving an approximation. QED.

Real Speedy fan 😀. IMHO Omega should make the regular Moonwatch a 105.012-65 re-issue with the 321 cal and never change it again !

padders · Jan 6, 2020

JwRosenthal
So the arguement of “only a watch with a 321 is a “real” moonwatch” didn’t do it for me as the reissued movement is not an “original” 321 as would have been taken to space, it’s a new movement made like the old one.
The answer padders just gave- that I can understand. A bit more anal retentive than I would ever need for analog time keeping, but I get it.
Thanks for that explanation.

I won't argue with your description of that post, I had rather too much time on my hands...

Foo2rama · Jan 6, 2020

@padders

great I can’t unsee that ever!

also in 321 vs 861

The 321 ran for less then 20 years. The 861 is currently on its 51st year of production. Or we can argue it was in production for 50 years. That’s a heck of a run for any movement.