- Posts
- 886
- Likes
- 470
Upgrade 1861 to 3861 - yes or no?
- Posts
- 886
- Likes
- 470
Duckie
·Do they not just charge this because it’s the original movement and they don’t make it anymore? I wasn’t aware it was particularly ‘better’ than the 1861.
I don't know that the 321 is necessarily better, but it was the first by virtue of being the only game in town at the time. The 321 is more prestigious because of the Column wheel operation.
After all the 861/1861 has probably logged a whole lot more hours on EVA's. So it's certainly fit for purpose👍
- Posts
- 498
- Likes
- 407
norb1967
·D DuckieI don't know that the 321 is necessarily better, but it was the first by virtue of being the only game in town at the time. The 321 is more prestigious because of the Column wheel operation.
After all the 861/1861 has probably logged a whole lot more hours on EVA's. So it's certainly fit for purpose👍
- Posts
- 886
- Likes
- 470
Duckie
·I've seen this argument is a few places. And to be clear, I'm not quibbling with it at all; it's a completely reasonable position. But I'm curious if it would change anyone's mind if the 3861 goes to the Moon on the Artemis missions? Would that make the 1861 (and I guess, the 861) the ugly stepsister in between 2 versions that went to the Moon?
Ugly stepsister👎
I've never thought of it like that, but there may well be an element of that.
Wedged between the charm of the first and the injury prone athletic magnificence of the youngest, but faithfully doing all the cooking, cleaning and washing👎
- Posts
- 886
- Likes
- 470
Duckie
·Am I right in saying that both the 321 and the 861/1861 were all approved for use in space flight by NASA?
I certainly believe this to be the case.
The 321 history is well understood.
The 861 went to the moon as part of an experiment not related to the watch from my understanding, with the 861/1861 being re-ccertified later and in use continuously ever since.
Though it's uncertain if or when the the last of the original batch of 321's was ever retired or are still in the mix.
- Posts
- 136
- Likes
- 125
mrmike585
·My only exposure to speedies is the new 3861 and I can tell you my first impression was that it was awesome. Don’t know how it compares but I’d buy the new one and be thrilled
- Posts
- 251
- Likes
- 273
Owlsu
·Look through enough old posts here on the Omega Forum and you'll see the general impression of the co-axial movements when they were introduced was really negative.
They were seen as not offering any real world benefit over traditional movements (like the 1861) and it was just a way for Omega to set themselves apart from the competition and they were a massive hassle to service - for the most part independent watchmakers couldn't even do them and it just locked the customers into an official Omega service.
I don't even know long term after all these years if co-axial even is actually anything worthwhile or not, or just nonsense marketing speak like Rolex's special in-house forged 904L steel - which is just stainless steel with extra anti-corrosion properties. I've never even seen a normal 316 stainless steel watch bracelet corrode in my life.
You can make any watch run as well as a co-axial one does and your watch isn't going to become magnetised because it's near a laptop computer.
All the 3861 really has going for it over an 861/1861 is slightly more historical accuracy with the dot over 90 and stepped dial, alongside the quality of life improvement of a hacking seconds hand.
They were seen as not offering any real world benefit over traditional movements (like the 1861) and it was just a way for Omega to set themselves apart from the competition and they were a massive hassle to service - for the most part independent watchmakers couldn't even do them and it just locked the customers into an official Omega service.
I don't even know long term after all these years if co-axial even is actually anything worthwhile or not, or just nonsense marketing speak like Rolex's special in-house forged 904L steel - which is just stainless steel with extra anti-corrosion properties. I've never even seen a normal 316 stainless steel watch bracelet corrode in my life.
You can make any watch run as well as a co-axial one does and your watch isn't going to become magnetised because it's near a laptop computer.
All the 3861 really has going for it over an 861/1861 is slightly more historical accuracy with the dot over 90 and stepped dial, alongside the quality of life improvement of a hacking seconds hand.
Edited:
- Posts
- 193
- Likes
- 192
7enderbender
·I've seen this argument is a few places. And to be clear, I'm not quibbling with it at all; it's a completely reasonable position. But I'm curious if it would change anyone's mind if the 3861 goes to the Moon on the Artemis missions? Would that make the 1861 (and I guess, the 861) the ugly stepsister in between 2 versions that went to the Moon?
I get the point. But I’m not even sure if NASA would still do any of this at all. Right now, NASA doesn’t even have new space suits. With them being more concerned having the right “diversity” on board than the technical capabilities, I watch the whole thing with a great deal of skepticism and concern.
- Posts
- 9
- Likes
- 4
OmegaSeeker
·The 1861 is not a precursor and distinct from the 3861 and I’m not convinced it’s an upgrade. Keep and upcycle the strap 😀
- Posts
- 363
- Likes
- 1,043
savka
·I get the point. But I’m not even sure if NASA would still do any of this at all. Right now, NASA doesn’t even have new space suits. With them being more concerned having the right “diversity” on board than the technical capabilities, I watch the whole thing with a great deal of skepticism and concern.
Diversity is a strength, not a weakness. What you’re describing probably has much more to do with limited resources. It’s not easy to do more with less...
In any case, I agree it’s unlikely that watches are high up on the priorities list nowadays. An important piece of kit in the 60s, but there’s better tech today.
- Posts
- 533
- Likes
- 754
Alex_TA
·Look through enough old posts here on the Omega Forum and you'll see the general impression of the co-axial movements when they were introduced was really negative.
They were seen as not offering any real world benefit over traditional movements (like the 1861) and it was just a way for Omega to set themselves apart from the competition and they were a massive hassle to service - for the most part independent watchmakers couldn't even do them and it just locked the customers into an official Omega service.
I don't even know long term after all these years if co-axial even is actually anything worthwhile or not, or just nonsense marketing speak like Rolex's special in-house forged 904L steel - which is just stainless steel with extra anti-corrosion properties. I've never even seen a normal 316 stainless steel watch bracelet corrode in my life.
You can make any watch run as well as a co-axial one does and your watch isn't going to become magnetised because it's near a laptop computer.
All the 3861 really has going for it over an 861/1861 is slightly more historical accuracy with the dot over 90 and stepped dial, alongside the quality of life improvement of a hacking seconds hand.
Utter BS. Coaxial is not less than a revolution. I don’t know which coaxial Omega model you’ve owned (if any) but coaxial gives long term stability and accuracy. I’ve owned 6 different models, 3 are with me now. Now even one was not accurate or had some movement related problems. My 3861 is .0.5 sec a day, my 7 years old AT is 1 sec a day without any regulation. Show me one not coaxial movement that can do this.
- Posts
- 363
- Likes
- 1,043
savka
·Utter BS. Coaxial is not less than a revolution. I don’t know which coaxial Omega model you’ve owned (if any) but coaxial gives long term stability and accuracy. I’ve owned 6 different models, 3 are with me now. Now even one was not accurate or had some movement related problems. My 3861 is .0.5 sec a day, my 7 years old AT is 1 sec a day without any regulation. Show me one not coaxial movement that can do this.
Beyond accuracy, a main benefit of the coaxial escapement is reduced friction and therefore reduced wear on the components, which should theoretically result in a more durable movement.
- Posts
- 9,642
- Likes
- 15,206
padders
··Oooo subtitles!Here is some Utter BS. Coaxial is not less than a revolution. I don’t know which coaxial Omega model you’ve owned (if any) but coaxial gives long term stability and accuracy. I’ve owned 6 different models, 3 are with me now. Now even one was not accurate or had some movement related problems. My 3861 is .0.5 sec a day, my 7 years old AT is 1 sec a day without any regulation. Show me one not coaxial movement that can do this.
FIFY
There were plenty of teething troubles with the Coax and the original double layer versions like the 2500 and 3313 were eventually changed for triple layer designs. You've been lucky, I've owned twice as many and they range in accuracy from great to not so great. There are plenty of std escapement watches that can run at 1 sec per day, and plenty that don't. Your 7 year old watch likely needs a service, even if the escapement is fine, the rest isn't by now. There is no evidence that the coaxial movement has made the movements need less servicing.
.
Edited:
- Posts
- 533
- Likes
- 754
Alex_TA
·FIFY
There were plenty of teething troubles with the Coax and the original double layer versions like the 2500 and 3313 were eventually changed for triple layer designs. You've been lucky, I've owned twice as many and they range in accuracy from great to not so great. There are plenty of std escapement watches that can run at 1 sec per day, and plenty that don't. Your 7 year old watch likely needs a service, even if the escapement is fine, the rest isn't by now. There is no evidence that the coaxial movement has made the movements need less servicing.
.
- Posts
- 9,642
- Likes
- 15,206
padders
··Oooo subtitles!Even the Apollo program had its first failed launches. I talk about 8500, 9300 and their derivatives that have been produced for more than 10 years.And they are freaking fantastic. And yes, there is a lot of evidence that coaxial movements are fine for at least 8 years and on.
- Posts
- 886
- Likes
- 470
Duckie
·Utter BS. Coaxial is not less than a revolution. I don’t know which coaxial Omega model you’ve owned (if any) but coaxial gives long term stability and accuracy. I’ve owned 6 different models, 3 are with me now. Now even one was not accurate or had some movement related problems. My 3861 is .0.5 sec a day, my 7 years old AT is 1 sec a day without any regulation. Show me one not coaxial movement that can do this.
I don't know that the Co-axial is necessarily revolutionary.
There has been a good handful of escapement technologies/designs out there for a very long time.
It's just that the co-axial has been the first for a zillion years that has been made to work in a mass produced setting. But not without enormous resources put into it and numerous redesigns to make it worth the while of Omega.
There are plenty of arguments back and forth over this, but there is a fundamental truth that's fairly inescapable, in that by the time the escapement needs attention the rest of the movement is probably getting overdue for a service anyway so servicing is possibly extended in some ways but not mitigated substantially.
That's not just my opinion, it's also the opinion of some watchmakers that work on the things.
It's certainly novel and has some timekeeping advantages, but it's not perfect and has it's own set of issues.
Keep in mind Co-axial is not the only game in town in that Rolex has done their own thing after being offered the Co-axial by Daniels.
Grand Seiko are also branching out in their own way aside from the Spring Drive, with 2 separate mechanical escapements in play, with the addition of their new revolutionary design along side a traditional escapement in production simultaneously.
With regard to timekeeping, I have had numerous examples of the old tech do better than +0.5 seconds per day and that's before and after servicing.
So to me Co-axial is nothing special in normal day to day timekeeping, except I do notice with mine that it's more stable with cyclical movement and substantial vibration which is nice👍
- Posts
- 886
- Likes
- 470
- Posts
- 66
- Likes
- 192
skipjack
·I would purely for accuracy and the stepped dial.
- Posts
- 69
- Likes
- 117
Alllexandru
·why change? 1861 is a solid time keeper 😀
- Posts
- 9,642
- Likes
- 15,206
padders
··Oooo subtitles!@Alllexandru
Your Lift Angle is set wrong, it's actually 50º for the 1861 so the amp is a little lower than you think, more like 285º but still looks quite solid.
Your Lift Angle is set wrong, it's actually 50º for the 1861 so the amp is a little lower than you think, more like 285º but still looks quite solid.
