Reply With QuoteGreat write up. Thank you.
Removed and apologies for wasting peoples time. In future I’ll just stick to slagging people off in the BP.
Last edited by Wallasey Runner; 17th August 2023 at 14:31.
Great write up. Thank you.
RIAC
Thanks Ken. I've had mine for about 18 months now and was actually wearing it yesterday. It's on the never sell list as I love it.
Lovely write up and pics, I have an original Ed White 105.003 from 1964 and will never sell.
Many thanks Ken
Gorgeous watch. It's a treasure. It's one of those when you know you know. Well, I didn't know about the chrono-hand tail. Thanks for the write-up.
Thanks for the write up Ken
It’s a lovely watch, it’s the perfect reissue.
Just need them to do the same with the 165:024 to keep the SM fans happy.Originally Posted by Sinnlover
One can only hope
Wow….simply stunning!
No it's not!
Wow….simply stunning!
How do you justify producing a movement where the hairspring mounting isn`t adjustable? This is late 50s design at its worst, anyone who knows anything about repairing watches will know how tricky and laborious a job it is to set a watch into beat with this antiquated design. From the 60s onwards watch movements were designed to enable the balance to be set in beat easily thus making adjustment straightforward.........I`m sure the majority swooning over this haven't got a clue what what I'm on about but that serves to illustrate the disconnect between watch buyers and those who really understand watches.
I think a few of you need to remove your rose-tinted specs, resurrection of the 321 has been a marketing ploy shrouded in mystique to get the gullible all dewy-eyed. Dream on, dreamers, I like the concept of producing the Speedmaster in it's original guise but trying to reproduce the 321 movement is taking it more than a step too far.
Of course there is also the Speedmaster Trilogy 1957 or the FOIS.
Ouch! Sorry for breathing lol
You raise an interesting and valid point. I guess the answer is that it goes back to Omega as a Ken outlined in his OP.
It’s not intended for these to go to an independent watch maker for a service - You can’t get parts.
They have to go back to the mother ship. Omega must be confident that they can service them. So as long as you pay the money, and you understand your service options it’s not really an issue, even if they swap the movement out.
You get something historically accurate and good looking.
Last edited by Sinnlover; 16th August 2023 at 20:53.
Rest easy Paul
Nobody's sending you one of these.
Watch looks great Ken.
I think my point has bee misinterpreted. Any competent repairer can put a watch of this design into beat, but compared to the later designs its a laborious process, a proper time- consuming pain in the arse. The 321 movement could've been resurrected but the balance cock from the 1861 should’ve been fitted, following the original design so faithfully is akin to putting cross- ply tyres on a modern car.
Smell the coffee guys, the reissue of this watch is yet another cynical example of Omega milking the Speedmaster mythology to the extreme.
Of course it is Paul, but whilst you know more than most about the mechanical workings of a movement you know sweet FA about the market, because that is not your area of expertise. If it was I would ask you to justify the bog standard moon watch with the white Snoopy dial that is no more than a standard £4.5k watch having a current market value of over £30k.
I’m sure your response would be full of bonkers, crazy, idiots etc etc, but as Mick P will tell you, it’s the market.
You are a purist and focus on the working of the movements, if I get into my car I really couldn’t give a shit as long as the damn thing starts when I start the engine.
Yes, I agree as many others do that Omega are milking the golden duck (work that one out), but because the way the market has gone over the last ten years we are all required to become players. We can’t all buy Grandfathers Omega from e-bay, polish and service it and tell everyone how bloody wonderful we are - well you do.
Thanks for shitting on my thread, is that because I couldn’t help you with the passport, but if I’m not happy with the watch I can easily move it on for above what I paid, as long as I’m quick because it will only be worth £8k soon.
Just lighten up.
Ouch........that shot was a bit below the belt!
Great catch & review Ken!
Yep - nice review and photos. :)
I have to say - it's the most comfortable watch (because of that bracelet) that I've ever worn. I often forget I'm wearing it!
10/10, gave me a good chuckle
Beautiful.
Lovely watch Ken.
Shame you pulled this Ken, I enjoyed reading it and looking at the pictures. Lovely watch despite the critics. If we wanted timekeeping excellence on our wrists then we’d all wear a digital. Or an atomic clock.
Hope you feel better having put everyone in their place.
As above, sorry you removed this (and beats me why you did, simply based on someone giving a slightly different opinion) - good write-up and lovely photos of a beautiful movement.
Oh well.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Ken I also think it’s a shame you pulled the thread on the basis that one persistent misog chipped in.
Last edited by Sinnlover; 17th August 2023 at 17:05.
Come on Ken, put the op back up please if you can.
You’r knowledge of the little details regarding certain watches is legendary.
Would like to read it if possible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pls could you send the post to me. I planned to read it this afternoon after I had finished a report. Thank you.
I like watches but don’t have a clue about the internal workings. I’m interested but it’s a subject that I will never understand I think. I buy a watch because I like it. If the watch needs fixing, it needs fixing. Naturally I will moan as I always do when spending money!
Would be nice if the OP is put back up.
I liked the review as most have said but especially the pictures, I think Paul's is from a repairers point of view where as yours is from a collectors point of view.
I hope you add it back as it was quite interesting, I also get Paul's point of view about manufacturers making things harder than they should of been just to make an extra buck.
Sent from a technical device.
Ken, I hope you continue to enjoy what is a lovely watch. I was pleased to read your thoughts before the thread took a turn.
Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have busy refitting the exhaust on our 1997 classic mini today.
1950's engineering at it's worst.
Still, at least I don't have one of those rubbish 1950's designed MG's.
It doesn't matter where his point of view comes from, it's more the fact that he's consistently rude, condescending and s**ts all over the enjoyment that people get from nice things.
Well done Paul
Please dont leave just rot behind, repost the review and be the winner.
RIAC
Agreed, haters always going to hate here I'm afraid Ken.
Based on it's own, stand alone merits the Calibre 321 is a) an epic watch and b) with one of the best looking movements out there - personally I couldn't car less if it was made out of cheese as long as it worked and looks as good as it does.
Paul had a point though that would not stop me from buying this Speedie. Ofcourse there is romanticism involved but why is it a bad thing ? 321 may not be a watchmaker’s dream but looks nice and is different and makes us feel nice and fuzzy.
It has a great heritage and is a lovely watch.
The same criticism can be levellers against a lot of reissues.
Personally, I like the idea of a watch with a modern 321.
Please put the review back up. It is natural to have someone with a differing view. May be expressed strongly but we are all big boys.
It's a beautiful watch. I hope you enjoy it. I will buy it if you ever want to sell it. Its a wonderful reinterpretation of a classic watch.
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
I'd start saving as they don't normally last long with Ken.
No saving required
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
FTFY
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Oh poop. This was an interesting and informative review that I had found most refreshing. But we all know that there was no point in engaging in the 'discussion', it was only going to deteriorate so I can understand why you pulled it.
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
+1, can't believe how the OP's over-reacted, I made a couple of valid points and he's chosen to take his bat and ball home.
Personally I like the watch, what I don't like (apart from the price) is the marketing hype from an organisation that doesn't give a shit about supporting its older products.
Ironically I`m an Omega collector with some excellent examples from their golden era in the late 60s, but I can`t relate to the modern incarnation of the brand. Time they stopped trying to milk the moon connection, it happened over 50 years ago and in retrospect it's no big deal, they supplied the watches.........so what? Would the firm that supplied the astronaut's bootlaces try to seek kudos from their achievement?
It was never my attention to fall out with the OP over this but that's how it's turned out, his problem not mine.
You are quite right, it is all somebody else's fault.
Same as it ever was.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Ralph, piss off and stop stirring the pot, keep your Teutonic Snout Out.
Kens, obviously passionate about his watch, he posted a very impressive review which I appreciated, but there are aspects to this re-issue that I found v. frustrating when it was first launched and I still find frustrating. I voiced my opinion and for reasons I can`t grasp I`m now the pariah, anyone would think I`d shot Bambi!
His reference to previous communication between him and myself by PM was a cheap shot which does him absolutely no credit and I think on reflection he'll agree with me.
Nothing that a bit of racism can't cure.
Early today?
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
You're doing a good job of keeping that reputation going.
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
Shame the conversation couldn’t be kept purely to watches. The OP posted a great write up and I thought that there were some valid watch type conversations going on (perhaps with a few little digs but we’’re all adults here right!?)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If one person calls you a cowboy it’s an opinion.
If five people call you a cowboy it might be time to get your saddle out.
Ken's pulled his post in a hissy fit.........end of. Just repost it and stop acting like a scouse pussy.
I made valid points based on an insight that most of you lack, resurrecting the 321 movement was purely a marketing ploy, this is the technical equivalent of selling a new car with a 1960s engine and gearbox.
Kings new clothes?.........I think so. if Ken's happy with the watch that's fine, frankly I think the price is crazy, but if it goes up in value he wins and if it goes down in value he shouldn't care, the only good reason to buy a watch is if you like it and in that case the value is irrelevent.
I`ll stick with my own collection of vintage Omegas, I have a stock of parts to maintain them, I don`t care about the values, unlike some I don't feel the need to keep chasing the unicorn.
You are of course correct.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Posting Permissions
