Okay have a dilemma on which to buy.

First up is classic speedy. Can get with Hes case at £2670 plus 0% interest free. Dilemma here is I like to wear my watches and am scared at first knock will wreck the face. This steers me towards sapphire face.

However have also seen
OmegaSpeedmaster Mark II Co-Axial Chronograph
Reference No. 327.10.43.50.01.001
for £3160 again 0% interest free.

Like the fact has the date and the recent co-axial movement. What would people go for?

 

Sorry added wrong model number for co-axial - 327.10.43.50.01.001 Omega Speedmaster Mark II Co-Axial Chronograph Watch

 

Personally I would go for the classic. I love the Mk II but the date in the sub-dial concept would annoy me every time I looked at it - the big numbers just look incongruous, especially from 10th onward. This is just my opinion and I'm sure others will say they love it for that very feature.

 

I also vote for the moonwatch. The plastic crystal is tougher than you think and it's easy to fix if you flail your hand into a doorframe like I'm wont to do. I use Novus plastic polish and a gun-cleaning patch, depending on how bad it is, and I sometimes do the final polish with Polywatch.

A few watchmakers whom I respect have suggested that the coaxial movement has some shortcuts in it for ease and economy of manufacture and that a vintage movement is better. Half of me believes it and half of me thinks it's BS, but these are experienced guys, so who knows?

I can tell you that after its most recent servicing, my caliber 1861 moonwatch keeps time to +2 seconds a day. I think the watch itself is also not as thick, in case that matters.

Tom

 

Moonwatch every day and twice on Sunday. Note my bias as I only have one nice watch and it is the 3570.50 speedy.

 

Total no-brainer. Classic for sure.

 

Indeed a no-brainer.

Also agree that the date window on that new mark ii is really irritating. Seeing a large "6" especially, really sets the OCD alarm off. And don't understand what sort of watch needs 2 sets of identical hour markers that use the same color scheme.

 

Comment is too vague to address technically - not sure if it refers specifically the 3330 movement, or all co-axials - either way it's an odd statement. Also, you would have to define what "better" means.

The 3330 in this watch is an ETA 7750 base, with a bunch of stuff added to it, including a column wheel system, co-axial escapement, and parts involved in moving the minute counter from the 12 o'clock position to the 3 o'clock position. There is nothing about the changes made to this movement that are "designed for ease and economy of manufacture" that does not apply to the original ETA 7750 from which it is derived. I have never serviced a 3330 (I suspect no one outside of the Swatch group has, since they would all still be under warranty now) but having serviced more 7750's than I can count, they are typically very robust, and very accurate, no matter if chronometer grade or not. The 7750 is very difficult movement to beat in the "which is better" sort of comparison in my view.

Cheers, Al

 

Speedy pro, hands down

 

I'd look right past a Mark II Coaxial to admire a classic Speedmaster Professional. I much prefer the appearance of both dial and case of the Speedmaster Professional.

I dislike watches with date features, finding them to be almost universally unappealing. Date features are an offense to the eye in my view.

 

Some of the comments I received:

So, he clearly likes a vintage lever over a modern lever or coaxial.

The rant in reply to my mentioning that my WathCo Seamaster 300 had a NOS 552 movement in it:

So... true? Not true? Hard to say.

But for sure the Caliber 1861 is a good movement.

Tom

 

Okay but Hex or Sapphire?

 

Well to start I don't think anyone said the 1861 (or 1866, 1863, 861, 321) are not good movements - certainly I would not.

The first quote you copied here seems to lack some general knowledge on co-axial, but the main point made about having to oil it is correct. As I have stated previously in threads here there is a lot of speculation why Daniels did not oil it and Omega has to, with many theories being floated so for example differences the materials used, and beat rates implemented. One theory I read stated that the solvent cup on Daniel's bench would have been used to clean oils off parts as he was working, so it would leave some oil deposits on parts when he dipped the co-axial parts in it, so his did in fact have oils on the escapement after all. I personally don't care about these theories, and don't really see the point in engaging in such speculation really - the Omega co-axial is what it is. It requires oiling, as the second quote (assuming from different people) says, because of the impact, not for reducing sliding friction.

But the way I read these, this is more about co-axial not working as Daniels did, rather than as you said "designed for ease and economy of manufacture" which in my view implies cutting corners.

The second larger quote referencing the Cal. 563 can be applied again to any modern watch, so as I mentioned in my first post here not related to the watch being co-axial or not. It's not even related to being Swatch Group product or not, as pretty much all companies at this mid-tier level (Omega, Rolex, Breitling, etc.) are making the sort of changes he describes. So again not really a co-axial thing, but more of an "anti-modern" rant really.

To be quite honest, I am far from "sold" on the co-axial escapement. The problems with the early watches were so numerous that honestly I sort of dread opening one up sometimes. On a 2 level escapement model (a Daniels design initially to make the movement thinner) I have to oil 30 individual points on the escapement...8 lower co-axial wheel teeth, 2 upper co-axial wheel teeth, and all 20 teeth on the intermediate escape wheel. All done under a microscope at 50X magnification, with drops so small I can barely see them on my oiler using a 10X loupe to pick up the oil. It's tedious work and one misplaced drop, or too of a large drop, and you pull it apart, clean it, epilame the parts again, and start oiling all over. Oiling a Swiss lever escapement is a breeze compared to oiling the co-axial. Note that none of Omega's current production use this 2 level design, so the 3 level co-axials have been much more reliable, and only require 10 oiling points instead of 30.

But make no mistake here, all companies make improvements in their designs as the weak spots appear in the movements they put into use. Omega is pretty overt about it compared to some companies, so it seems maybe that the others are not making modifications, when they really are. Take a Rolex 3135 that was produced back in 1988 when they first came out, and compare it to a modern one, and you will see places where things have been beefed up because of problems.

So two things - if you look at Stewart's first reply in this thread, I have liked it - this means I would absolutely pick the Speedmaster Pro over the Mk. II, and for many reasons.

Second, if you want a truly oil free escapement in your watch, buy a Sinn model with their Diapal escapement. It truly does not need oil, and is a traditional Swiss lever escapement.

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks for your perspective, Al. FYI, all quotes are from the same person, a watchmaker who got out of the retail business and exclusively makes parts for the trade.

Tom

 

Matt Henning?

 

Um, yeah, though I didn't want to share that.

Tom

 

Oooh the font of all knowledge.
He certainly does his homework that Al character.

 

When Al speaks we listen.

 

In Al We Trust

 

true - it's great a so much skilled an experienced watchmaker shares his knowledge patiently with a bunch of novices (at least I am one of these).

Al should apply grants from the government for his free education lessons... (or maybe the watch industry should pay him - hmm, maybe they won't ..... how does the watch industry care about the VINTAGE pieces except from using it's heritage to advertise it's new stuff)