- Posts
- 29,675
- Likes
- 76,836
Archer
··Omega Qualified Watchmakerb) Let's be honest, it is outdated tech: IIRC, designed back in the middle 40's.
All mechanical watches are "outdated technology" even if they were designed yesterday...
The 321 thing...
All mechanical watches are "outdated technology" even if they were designed yesterday...
- Posts
- 444
- Likes
- 751
valkyrie_rider
·@Archer indeed, all mechanical watches are outdated tech.
That being said, I personally see the caliber 1040 and 1041 released in the 70's (i.e. almost 30 years later) as a better and more 'modern' movement than the 321.
Advantages are:
a) Automatic.
b) AM/PM indicator.
c) Chronograph has a central minutes hand.
d) Date.
e) The 1041 was also chronometer certified.
That being said, I personally see the caliber 1040 and 1041 released in the 70's (i.e. almost 30 years later) as a better and more 'modern' movement than the 321.
Advantages are:
a) Automatic.
b) AM/PM indicator.
c) Chronograph has a central minutes hand.
d) Date.
e) The 1041 was also chronometer certified.
- Posts
- 29,675
- Likes
- 76,836
Archer
··Omega Qualified Watchmaker@Archer indeed, all mechanical watches are outdated tech.
That being said, I personally see the caliber 1040 and 1041 released in the 70's (i.e. almost 30 years later) as a better and more 'modern' movement than the 321.
Advantages are:
a) Automatic.
b) AM/PM indicator.
c) Chronograph has a central minutes hand.
d) Date.
e) The 1041 was also chronometer certified.
Sure, there may be features that you prefer over others (quite honestly none of the things you list are particular advantages to me) but to say it's because of it being "outdated" doesn't really fit with those things.
If it doesn't have a quartz crystal in it doing the timekeeping, it's outdated...
- Posts
- 2,443
- Likes
- 4,232
- Posts
- 192
- Likes
- 185
cfracing
·I don't think there'd be much demand for the 901, considering Singer has made a superior version, and I think the same applies to Omega--older isn't always better, I'd be happier with a more accurate manual (or automatic movement) with hacking.
I did notice that both of your preferred alternative choices for Porsche re-issues are air-cooled. 😀
Edited:
- Posts
- 2,086
- Likes
- 2,897
OMEGuy
·Sure, there may be features that you prefer over others (quite honestly none of the things you list are particular advantages to me) but to say it's because of it being "outdated" doesn't really fit with those things.
If it doesn't have a quartz crystal in it doing the timekeeping, it's outdated...
Is quartz technology still used in the current Smartwatches?
- Posts
- 29,675
- Likes
- 76,836
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerIs quartz technology still used in the current Smartwatches?
First, I wasn’t including those because to me they are not watches, but smart phones you wear on your wrist. Being a watch is not the primary function in my view.
I don’t pretend to be an expert in smart watches, nor have I looked into the construction of every smart watch on the market. However, when Apple first launched their watch they bragged about the timekeeping, the use of servers, etc., but said the watch also had a quartz crystal oscillator inside.
I have no idea if the current crop does...
- Posts
- 57
- Likes
- 42
Yukatan
·well then, thank GOD you don't have to buy the 321 reissue!
I think you are misinterpreting the analogy. The 321 is the engine of the Speedmaster, not the watch itself. To me the Singer is the new 901. The engine in the Singer is a flat-six, air-cooled engine, think 321, but with modern components, increased displacement, and highly tuned. I am pretty sure Singer has no problem getting orders for their cars because there is a core of Porschephiles who think a true Porsche has to have an air-cooled engine (abandoned by Porsche in 1998) even though the modern 911s have a monstrous amount more power using modern water-cooled motors. I believe there is a core of Moonwatchphiles(?) who would love a Speedmaster with a 321 updated with new components and are willing to pay the price for one just like Singer purchasers. How large that core is, I don't know.
I did notice that both of your preferred alternative choices for Porsche re-issues are air-cooled. 😀
Ah, well if the 993 were water-cooled I'd still love it--it's just so pretty (I suspect 997s will inflate in value over time). 😀
But yeah, continuing with the analogy, they're air-cooled, but the flat-six has evolved over time, just as Omega's hand-wound movements have. I realize then what we're analogizing (is that a word?) is different. I equate air-cooled to Omega's mechanical hand-wound movements in general... (321, 861 and 1861). Considering quartz, automatic movements, the emergence of smartwatches, I think buying a Speedie is inherently buying into older tech. I think it's great Omega is re-releasing the 321, like the OP I don't necessarily think it's more of a moonwatch than the current Speedies (that'd be a marketing landmine for Omega too).
- Posts
- 1,759
- Likes
- 5,502
Screwbacks
·everything remains to be seen on the flesh. then, every tiny aspects of the final finished product of the new 321 will be scrutinized from the hands, dials, indces, lugs, lugs' edges and facets, bracelets, links, bezel & don, etc., etc. etc. at the end of the day, we will be dismayed. 🙁 ..........or, exceedingly happy!!!👍
Edited:
- Posts
- 192
- Likes
- 185
cfracing
·Ah, well if the 993 were water-cooled I'd still love it--it's just so pretty (I suspect 997s will inflate in value over time). 😀
Back to watches, I would love a Speedmaster with the new 321, because I do feel it is more of a moonwatch, but I suspect it will be priced beyond what I am willing to spend just like the Singer. I also probably won't buy one because I prefer the 105.003 case and Omega will probably go with a 105.012 42mm case.
- Posts
- 9,217
- Likes
- 24,057
oddboy
·Is quartz technology still used in the current Smartwatches?
Well, that's an interesting question...
A crystal oscillator is an electronic oscillator circuit that uses the mechanical resonance of a vibrating crystal of piezoelectric material to create an electrical signal with a precise frequency.[1][2][3] This frequency is often used to keep track of time, as in quartz wristwatches, .....
...ah nevermind, ok, not my words. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator
- Posts
- 76
- Likes
- 113
Airbus
·What I am asking myself - besides getting a 321 from the days it was in production, what gives you the most (experienced) "connection" to NASA and space? I'm not so sure that it is an exclusive watch reproduced in 2019 even though the movement construction is the same as the original 321. The 1861 that you can buy in any Omega store on the other hand has been used in space, both in shuttle missions, orbiting around the moon and in russians space programs. This is my question. A vintage 321 - I definetly see the point and I would like to own one. A 1861 vs a new production of the 1861 - I don't know.
- Posts
- 1,306
- Likes
- 1,465
SeanO
·and we're back with the "but my watch went to the moon" bollocks.
a limited number of mid 60's Omega chronographs owned by NASA were supplied to US Government employees to wear as 3rd or 4th backup timekeepers and may (or may not) have been worn on the surface of the Moon.
At no time has your Omega Sheepmaster been anywhere near either space or the moon (unless you're counting watching TV).
How anybody can get some sort of secondary moonshot effect from a mass manufactured watch is anybody's guess.
One of the leading indicators of the decline of any civilisation is the "retro" bug. Too much attention paid to the past and not enough to the future. You can never go back in time. You can't even look over your shoulder at whatever happened yesterday.
old tech (with thanks to @Archer), old ideas.
how does anybody worship "70 year old tech" over the current era Omega movements?
a limited number of mid 60's Omega chronographs owned by NASA were supplied to US Government employees to wear as 3rd or 4th backup timekeepers and may (or may not) have been worn on the surface of the Moon.
At no time has your Omega Sheepmaster been anywhere near either space or the moon (unless you're counting watching TV).
How anybody can get some sort of secondary moonshot effect from a mass manufactured watch is anybody's guess.
One of the leading indicators of the decline of any civilisation is the "retro" bug. Too much attention paid to the past and not enough to the future. You can never go back in time. You can't even look over your shoulder at whatever happened yesterday.
old tech (with thanks to @Archer), old ideas.
how does anybody worship "70 year old tech" over the current era Omega movements?
- Posts
- 9,217
- Likes
- 24,057
oddboy
·What I am asking myself - besides getting a 321 from the days it was in production, what gives you the most (experienced) "connection" to NASA and space? I'm not so sure that it is an exclusive watch reproduced in 2019 even though the movement construction is the same as the original 321. The 1861 that you can buy in any Omega store on the other hand has been used in space, both in shuttle missions, orbiting around the moon and in russians space programs. This is my question. A vintage 321 - I definetly see the point and I would like to own one. A 1861 vs a new production of the 1861 - I don't know.
https://monochrome-watches.com/omega-speedmaster-x-33-skywalker-review-price/
@SeanO, this 'look back while moving forward' has been going on for eons. it's part of being human. every generation does it. you don't have to like it, but at the same time, it's not hurting anyone, so let it go.
- Posts
- 230
- Likes
- 455
Inpw
·and we're back with the "but my watch went to the moon" bollocks.
a limited number of mid 60's Omega chronographs owned by NASA were supplied to US Government employees to wear as 3rd or 4th backup timekeepers and may (or may not) have been worn on the surface of the Moon.
At no time has your Omega Sheepmaster been anywhere near either space or the moon (unless you're counting watching TV).
How anybody can get some sort of secondary moonshot effect from a mass manufactured watch is anybody's guess.
One of the leading indicators of the decline of any civilisation is the "retro" bug. Too much attention paid to the past and not enough to the future. You can never go back in time. You can't even look over your shoulder at whatever happened yesterday.
old tech (with thanks to @Archer), old ideas.
how does anybody worship "70 year old tech" over the current era Omega movements?
Just wondering, why do you state that Speedmasters "may not" have been worn on the surface of the moon? This has been properly documented and is pretty much undisputed.
- Posts
- 257
- Likes
- 273
Owlsu
·I could be totally missing the mark here asking this, but aren't coloumn wheel movements generally regarded as "better" or more "high horology" than cam ones?
If that's true then why are Omega even going to continue making the 1861? Why not just completely kill off the 1861 and make the 321 the standard Speedmaster movement and just up its price?
Even if it's true about the 321 being made by a tiny skilled team and it does take longer to produce each watch, I only see that as a good thing - the market and especially grey market is currently flooded with Omega's and this would be a good excuse to slow down production...under the guise of it taking longer to produce a much better quality movement/product.
They were willing to increase the price by £700 just to stick a great big presentation box in with the watch so why not make a similar kind of price increase for a real improved movement. Even with an increase of a thousand or two it's still over half the price of other famous column wheels like the Daytona or Zenith's and I'm pretty sure Tudor are making a column wheel Black Bay for the exact same price as a current 1861 Speedmaster except it also has a date, screw down pushers, 200m WR and a sapphire crystal so I don't get what's holding Omega back here.
I'm sure they only stopped making the 321 because of cost saving rather than it being inferior and with the type of production they have these days and their market position compared to the 70's I'd have thought it would actually be do-able.
If that's true then why are Omega even going to continue making the 1861? Why not just completely kill off the 1861 and make the 321 the standard Speedmaster movement and just up its price?
Even if it's true about the 321 being made by a tiny skilled team and it does take longer to produce each watch, I only see that as a good thing - the market and especially grey market is currently flooded with Omega's and this would be a good excuse to slow down production...under the guise of it taking longer to produce a much better quality movement/product.
They were willing to increase the price by £700 just to stick a great big presentation box in with the watch so why not make a similar kind of price increase for a real improved movement. Even with an increase of a thousand or two it's still over half the price of other famous column wheels like the Daytona or Zenith's and I'm pretty sure Tudor are making a column wheel Black Bay for the exact same price as a current 1861 Speedmaster except it also has a date, screw down pushers, 200m WR and a sapphire crystal so I don't get what's holding Omega back here.
I'm sure they only stopped making the 321 because of cost saving rather than it being inferior and with the type of production they have these days and their market position compared to the 70's I'd have thought it would actually be do-able.
Edited:
- Posts
- 29,675
- Likes
- 76,836
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerWell, that's an interesting question...
A crystal oscillator is an electronic oscillator circuit that uses the mechanical resonance of a vibrating crystal of piezoelectric material to create an electrical signal with a precise frequency.[1][2][3] This frequency is often used to keep track of time, as in quartz wristwatches, .....
...ah nevermind, ok, not my words. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator
This is a photo of an actual quartz crystal that has been removed from the can - not my photo...
Note that it is shaped like a tuning fork, and how it is cut will determine the frequency of the crystal, and depending on the design of the movement that will in part determine the rate of the watch. More on quartz technology here for those who might be interested and missed it since the post is a few years old now...
https://omegaforums.net/threads/quartz-watches-some-information-some-may-find-interesting.5475/
- Posts
- 444
- Likes
- 751
valkyrie_rider
·If people really are into column wheels, IIRC the omega caliber 9300 has it plus: co-axial escapement and silicon hairspring.
- Posts
- 999
- Likes
- 1,678
ac106
·and we're back with the "but my watch went to the moon" bollocks.
a limited number of mid 60's Omega chronographs owned by NASA were supplied to US Government employees to wear as 3rd or 4th backup timekeepers and may (or may not) have been worn on the surface of the Moon.
At no time has your Omega Sheepmaster been anywhere near either space or the moon (unless you're counting watching TV).
How anybody can get some sort of secondary moonshot effect from a mass manufactured watch is anybody's guess.
One of the leading indicators of the decline of any civilisation is the "retro" bug. Too much attention paid to the past and not enough to the future. You can never go back in time. You can't even look over your shoulder at whatever happened yesterday.
old tech (with thanks to @Archer), old ideas.
how does anybody worship "70 year old tech" over the current era Omega movements?
You must be a blast at parties!
- Posts
- 444
- Likes
- 751
valkyrie_rider
·Now if you really want to look for true horological tech innovation, I would look into Seiko SpringDrive. Mechanical power with near quartz precision, something truly innovative:
Similar threads
- Posts
- 15
- Views
- 1K
- Posts
- 1
- Views
- 209
