Still playing with a possible Speedbird 3

[Kamraj]

Crusader, re

Tim, while a manual watch may be very desirable for this community, the attractiveness of such a watch with acrylic crystal (with a screw-down bezel, by the way) for Eddie's business may be an entirely different matter. Also, the 11 had a 35mm diameter - hardly something to catch the fancy of a multitude of buyers, these days.

On the manual watch with acrylic crystal, Eddie will know best, but I wouldn't be surprised if the PRS53 has been quite a good seller. As for the Mark 11 dial, I note that many people have been modifying Speedbirds, PRS53s, and O&Ws with Yao Type 48 dials: the Friday thread is awash with them. Some have even had them relumed in C3 :D .

I for one would definitely be very tempted by a Mark 11 dial with C3 lume in a PRS53 case with manual wind and acrylic, which would also address the size problem. I know Eddie's not sourcing from the PRS53 OEM anymore, so that could be a problem, but whether it's 35mm or 37mm I think is not too important. The real point which Tim makes is that the sterile Mark 11 dial is probably the most classic expression of the RAF aviator watch, and is hard to come by in a new watch unless one is willing to put up with the size of the Quad 10. I'd think it a market opportunity, but again Eddie knows best. Of course, a certain Mark MCxxxxxx would lose some of its uniqueness - ok, all of its uniqueness, since it wouldn't be unique anymore ... :D

Kamraj

[Mabuse]

On the manual watch with acrylic crystal, Eddie will know best, but I wouldn't be surprised if the PRS53 has been quite a good seller. As for the Mark 11 dial, I note that many people have been modifying Speedbirds, PRS53s, and O&Ws with Yao Type 48 dials: the Friday thread is awash with them. Some have even had them relumed in C3 :D .

I for one would definitely be very tempted by a Mark 11 dial with C3 lume in a PRS53 case with manual wind and acrylic, which would also address the size problem.

Kamraj

Have been pondering doing just that the last couple o' weeks: buying a 53 and ordering Yao parts and have a local watchmaker fit them. Only problem is the cost as it would make it a £200+ watch instead of a £125 watch. While it would still be worth it (by far) the thought of wasting* the extra bucks is holding me back :(

*wasting for a lack of better word, as it potentially could have been build with the "right" dial and the "right" hands and saving the modifications - youknowwhatiamsaying?

[bubi]

drilled lugs!!!!

can't live without them anymore since I got the PRS18.

We need drilling!
Please.


PS: why are you not selling the speedbird one any longer?
I would buy one.
All those pictures and specs and that "sold out" notice,
just do me so much hurt....

[Dave E]

drilled lugs!!!!

can't live without them anymore since I got the PRS18.

We need drilling!
Please.


PS: why are you not selling the speedbird one any longer?
I would buy one.
All those pictures and specs and that "sold out" notice,
just do me so much hurt....

Speedbird I was a Limited Edition, you see them change hands from time to time (one sold here recently). Have you looked at the Speedbird II?

[swanbourne]

The Speedbird II is almost sold out now and I have to commit to another 300 cases from Zeno. I'll not be doing this so it's time to push the SB3 ahead - HARD!

Eddie

[bambam]

The Speedbird II is almost sold out now and I have to commit to another 300 cases from Zeno. I'll not be doing this so it's time to push the SB3 ahead - HARD!

Eddie

that's good news...

8)

[Crusader]

I consider this excellent news as well. :D

[abraxas]

.
Have we got any number for the SB3 ... like case size, lug size ... ??

john

[Crusader]

.
Have we got any number for the SB3 ... like case size, lug size ... ??

john

Eddie's original proposal was patterned after the IWC Mark XV which has a 38mm case and 19mm lugs ... but I would hope that the lugs would be broadened to a very sensible and versatile 20mm width.

[abraxas]

.
Have we got any number for the SB3 ... like case size, lug size ... ??

john

Eddie's original proposal was patterned after the IWC Mark XV which has a 38mm case and 19mm lugs ... but I would hope that the lugs would be broadened to a very sensible and versatile 20mm width.

If the lugs get increased to 20mm, then the case will have to go to at least 39mm.

20mm lugs on 38mm case look odd.

john

[mr1973]

.
Have we got any number for the SB3 ... like case size, lug size ... ??

john

Eddie's original proposal was patterned after the IWC Mark XV which has a 38mm case and 19mm lugs ... but I would hope that the lugs would be broadened to a very sensible and versatile 20mm width.

If the lugs get increased to 20mm, then the case will have to go to at least 39mm.

20mm lugs on 38mm case look odd.

john

I really do hope so... as i´ve got tons of 20mm straps but no single 19mm one ;-)

[Dapper]

Eddie's original proposal was 39mm/20mm which is what I'm hoping for 8)

[bubi]

ciao,
just to answer the question,
yes, I have been looking at the speedbird 2.
a very interesting piece. though th 18mm lugs put me off a bit (with all those 20mm straps to play with...) and of course, my secrete desire to fit an oyster bracelet.

so, as I understand, we started of with a limited edition of 50 sb1, and now we are about to finish off the standard etition of the sb2.
so... this too is a limited edition, no?

so, just to recap, it would appear we would get a sb3 with:

39mm width
20mm lugs
sapphire (domed or flat?)
100m wr
manual wind so....
no screw down crown
mk11 luminous cardinal points
antimagnetic core
no date

price?
my best guess would be about as much as the prs14.

humm....

maybe I will go for a smallersized automatic with screwdown crown.
and a bunchload of new 18mm straps....

but that antimagnetic stuff is a killer!

ok,
ciao

[pinkwindmill]

.
Have we got any number for the SB3 ... like case size, lug size ... ??

john

Eddie's original proposal was patterned after the IWC Mark XV which has a 38mm case and 19mm lugs ... but I would hope that the lugs would be broadened to a very sensible and versatile 20mm width.

If the lugs get increased to 20mm, then the case will have to go to at least 39mm.

20mm lugs on 38mm case look odd.

john

According to Eddie's sales pages, the SB 1903 is 38mm with 20mm lugs and that looks OK I think, so it's an option at least.

Cheers,

Guy

[swanbourne]

I'm on the phone with Fricker right now and he tells me that I wouldn't get delivery on the ETA2892 until mid-2008 but he can offer me a "Quality 1" 2824, adjusted in 4 positions which would be chronometer rated.

Eddie

[Crusader]

I'm on the phone with Fricker right now and he tells me that I wouldn't get delivery on the ETA2892 until mid-2008

:shock: :shock: :shock: If the admitted lead time is 18 months now already ... one wonders when the movements would really be available! :P :roll: :lol: :wink:

Any chance of a slimmer antimagnetic inner case (rated to 40'000 A/m, like the IWC) to compensate for the greater height of the 2824?

[rickf]

Interesting development on movement availability and its potential impact on the case design.

Another case design related queston I have has to do with tup-to-tip length of the lugs. As a member of the SWC*, the 39mm case starts to bump into my max case size. It would probably be OK for me though if the lug length doesn't go much beyond 49-50mm. I've noticed that the Yao Quad10 has really long lugs and would probably not work for me (hate it when the lugs extend past my 6.5" wrist.) I'm wondering if Eddie has progressed far enough on the design to determine the lug length.

Rick

*SWC = Small Wrist Club, lobby group comprised of spindly wristed watch enthusiasts that competes with Crusader's BWC alliance

[swanbourne]

Chronomaster has/had a Mk XV for sale and says that the lug tip to tip measurement is 44mm althout I'm sceptical that the lugs extend only 2.5mm on each side of the case.

Eddie

[rickf]

I may be able to answer my own question then if I can assume that the original picture you posted is exactly what the SBIII will be. I printed out that picture and did some measurements on the case size and how far the lugs extend past the case. I scaled those numbers to the specified 39mm case size and it looks like the lugs extend past the case by 4mm. This gives an overall tip-to-tip length of 47mm.

Just to check my method I ran the same exercise on the SBII and determined that the lugs extended past the case by 5.4mm which resulted in a tip-to-tip length of 48.3mm (0.2mm off the stated spec of 48.5). Not bad considering I used a crappy paper ruler I printed out from somewhere online.

If my calculations are correct then I feel quite good about all the dimensions described. Even though the case is a tad larger than I normally prefer I don't think I'll have any problems wearing this at all. In fact the shorter lug length tips me back in favor of waiting for the SBIII instead of mod-ing an SBII to look like I want.

Thanks,
Rick

[Dave E]

Lug to lug length is an important measure for me, as well. Over 50mm would be a problem. On the SB II the lugs seem relatively long, possibly because the holes are set quite far back in the lugs (actually, this always causes me issues with the SB II as I need to fit it with fairly thick straps to avoid the lug tips sticking out a bit oddly).

[Dave E]

Pity about the 2892 lead time, that would be a nice choice. The Longines I got before Christmas has a 2892 based movement, and I'm really liking how slim it wears as a result.

[Crusader]

Chronomaster has/had a Mk XV for sale and says that the lug tip to tip measurement is 44mm althout I'm sceptical that the lugs extend only 2.5mm on each side of the case.

44mm is the lug-to-lug length of the IWC Fliegerchrono 3740/3741, and possibly of the Mark XII (diameter 36mm). The XV must be bigger by at least 2mm.

Here are some lug-to-lug measurements from my Mark 11 Homage database:

PRS-53: 48mm
Quad 10: 52.5mm (!)
Mark 11: 46.5mm
IWC 3740/3741: 44mm

[Guntram]

I'm on the phone with Fricker right now and he tells me that I wouldn't get delivery on the ETA2892 until mid-2008

:shock: Yikes! :roll:

Not sure I like Crusader's idea of compromising on the 80,000 A/m rating for the benefit of earlier availability - at least not until all other avenues have been explored...

Any chance of sourcing the 2892 elsewhere?

Guntram

[rickf]

I wouldn't have a problem with settling for 40,000 A/m. That is a pretty good rating by most accounts. I imagine another benefit besides availability might also be reduced cost.

I think keeping the overall height of the watch down is an important part of the specification. If it can be done by compromising the anti-magnetic rating to a respectable 40,000 A/m and it reduces the cost even further I would jump at it.

[Crusader]

Just to put the 40'000 and 80'000 A/m antimagnetic rating in perspective, the original specs for the Mark 11 called for an antimagnetic rating of 12'000 A/m. (Admittedly, the actual antimagnetic protection of a Mark 11 is likely much higher, but that is in excess of what the Ministry of Defense asked for in their spec.)

The present-day American military specification calls for 10'000 A/m.

The DIN/ISO standard rate is 4'800 A/m.

[A.Pottinger]

F******
Actually, I feel a real opportunity for a spec-tacular movement with the adjustments has come up. I reckon, take the movement, witht he lovely adjustments, reduce the A/M to 40,000 which is very good, in any case.
Ensure if possible, not great lug measurements, as far as possible.


Perhaps a spec. run down, under the scenario of taking the chronometer and adjusted movement, and the resultant case design/ measurements under a couple of different A/M ratings would give a good idea as to possibilites as far as actual measurements and resultant preferences.

E.g.
"Quality 1" 2824, adjusted in 4 positions, chronometer rated:
In case design for 40,000 A/M
In case design for 80,000 A/M
In case design for another chosen value that may be very suitable, all round.

Measurement for each, of the lugs and case dimensions, in general.

Sincerely,
AP

[deryckb]

Chronomaster has/had a Mk XV for sale and says that the lug tip to tip measurement is 44mm althout I'm sceptical that the lugs extend only 2.5mm on each side of the case.

Eddie

On chronomaster the 44mm is for a Mk XII, the Mk XV says 47mm lug to lug.

[swanbourne]

Chronomaster has/had a Mk XV for sale and says that the lug tip to tip measurement is 44mm althout I'm sceptical that the lugs extend only 2.5mm on each side of the case.

Eddie

On chronomaster the 44mm is for a Mk XII, the Mk XV says 47mm lug to lug.

Must have been looking at the wrong one.

Eddie

[pinkwindmill]

Chronocop has an XV for sale on the sales board at the moment - maybe you could get the exact measurements from him? :)

Cheers,

Guy

[flieger]

I´ve just checked my mkXV and it measures 47mm lug to lug

[Kamraj]

According to Crusader's data sheet wot he emailed me, Sinn 656's lug to lug length is 45mm - it does, compared to SBII, have short lugs, but 20mm lug width also shortens the overall length on a round case because the lugs "start" further "back" along the curvature of the case.

Kamraj

[Crusader]

According to Crusader's data sheet wot he emailed me, Sinn 656's lug to lug length is 45mm - it does, compared to SBII, have short lugs, but 20mm lug width also shortens the overall length on a round case because the lugs "start" further "back" along the curvature of the case.

Kamraj

Good point, Kamraj.

The spring bars on the 656 are really too close to the case, limiting the choice of straps that can be mounted on the watch due to their thickness (i.e. longer lugs would be desirable).

[rickf]

Switching back to the subject of 2892 availability and Crusader's suggestion of substituting a high grade 2824. I did a little research and found some interesting information on the 2892 here:
http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2892/eta2892.html

and the 2824 here:
http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2824/eta2824.html

There is a good comparison of the two movements in these articles with one of the points being that the 2892 is 3.6 mm high while the 2824 is 4.6mm. The additional 1mm in height is a significant increase (in terms of percentage). Presumably the additional 1mm will require the SBIII's height to exceed Eddie's target of < 11mm overall in order to maintain 80,000 A/m rating. Would reducing the rating to 40,000 A/m make up for the additional 1mm required for the 2824? If so, would 40,000 A/m be an acceptable tradeoff? Are chronometer grade 2824s easily available or less expensive than the 2892?

Rick

[swanbourne]

I can get the 2824 "Quality 1", adjusted in 4 positions and certainly capable of being adjusted to chronometer standard for about half the price of a 2892 and these savings will of course be reflected in the selling price. There would be no saving in case thickness by reducing the anti-magnetic rating to 40,000 A/m. Fricker consistently over-engineers their watch cases, especially the thickness of the case back so perhaps some savings can be made here.

Eddie

[rickf]

A few months ago I started a spreadsheet so I could compare side by side the features, dimensions and pictures of different pilot watches to help me decide which I prefer. I opened it up today for the first time in a while to update some of the SBIII info. I happened to notice that the time on the IWC Mk XV picture I found somewhere on the web is identical to the SBIII picture on the forum (10:13:23.5). Found it amusing that the Mk XV picture I selected is the same dial that Eddie chose to photoshop.

Rick

[Steven]

I am still hoping we can keep this model at 38-38.5mm . Please 8)
the IWC MkXV is about 47mm lug to lug. a tad long IMO actually.
the Speedbird 1/2/O&W cases are good but the lug to lug length on those is a killer and very disproportionate. even worse than IWC MkXV
656 has very good proportions IMO, with a 38.5mm case, 45-46mm lug to lug.
Tutima FX is another classic 38.5mm case with 45-46mm lug to lug distance. as a big plus it has a huge domed sapphire crystal. I don't know if that is feasable with Speedbird 3 but would be nice :)
20mm lug width is the only way to go. Rolex Explorers have that lug width on a 36mm and rarely do people complain.

[Guntram]

I can get the 2824 "Quality 1", adjusted in 4 positions and certainly capable of being adjusted to chronometer standard for about half the price of a 2892 and these savings will of course be reflected in the selling price. There would be no saving in case thickness by reducing the anti-magnetic rating to 40,000 A/m. Fricker consistently over-engineers their watch cases, especially the thickness of the case back so perhaps some savings can be made here.

As Crusader said - overengineering is the new black. :lol:

Not meaning to keep harping, but I must admit I find 40K a whole lot less appealing than 80, and comparing it to the standard sounds like a rationalization to me. Sounds like "Wow, almost 9 times better than average! Even a 656 is only twice as resilient!"

Maybe I'm only too much of a marketing guy, but that just doesn't sound like that much of a unique product to me... If you can equal a potentially competitive watch in one category (A/m rating) and beat them in another (looks), you have a surefire winner. By settling for a trade-off, you're not going to convince the spec-aholic customers.

Understood that price point is important, though - then again, I have zero idea what the difference would end up being. I'm going on a wildly speculative guesstimate here - but since case, glass, etc etc *have* to account for the bulk of the cost, I'd reckon the price difference would be in the neighborhood of 15-20%.

Would that make or break my decision to buy the watch? No. Would the specs? Absolutely.

Then again, I do realize I'm just one individual and not necessarily reflecting the market as such. :wink: Is there a chance we take a poll on this?

Guntram

[rickf]

I think a poll on 40k vs 80K A/m would be interesting. Before I could participate though I think I need to be better informed. Besides bragging rights over who has the better anti-mag rating, what would I give up, practically speaking, by not opting for 80K? If I were an MRI technician maybe I'd pause since MRIs can have field intensities in the 160K - 2.4M A/m range. What other occupations or common sources of intense magnetic fields suggest that 80K is really worth paying extra for? I'm not trying to be argumentative here I'm really interested in finding out if I should be concerned about a lower anti-mag rating.

The point may be moot though since Eddie stated that lowering the anti-mag rating doesn't save on case thickness. At this point in time I would be more concerned about the case thickness than the anti-mag resistance.

[A.Pottinger]

I can get the 2824 "Quality 1", adjusted in 4 positions and certainly capable of being adjusted to chronometer standard for about half the price of a 2892 and these savings will of course be reflected in the selling price. There would be no saving in case thickness by reducing the anti-magnetic rating to 40,000 A/m. Fricker consistently over-engineers their watch cases, especially the thickness of the case back so perhaps some savings can be made here.

Eddie

So it is to what case dimensions are possible for this movement and the design concept.

Look forward to hearing more in regard to this, in due course, naturally. :)

Very Interesting:

2824 "Quality 1", adjusted in 4 positions and certainly capable of being adjusted to chronometer standard for about half the price of a 2892

***

Some observations in comparing the ETA 2892 and 2824 Nb the 2824 we are concerned with here, for the speedbird is the chronometer version, from the link in rickf's post:

Dimensions and Differences

Dimensions [of the ETA 2924 (AP).] are very similar to the 2892. Casing diameter is identical, 25.6mm, but the overall height is slightly more, 4.6mm versus 3.6mm. That doesn?t sound like much, only 1mm thicker. Still, considering the small dimensions that we?re dealing with, 4.6mm is almost 28% thicker than 3.6mm.

As one can see when comparing pictures of the two movements, they have many similarities. I?m not going to point out every single difference between them, but the main differences are;

a) more generously proportioned wheels

b) larger diameter balance wheel

c) smaller diameter ball bearing race support

d) crown and ratchet wheel fit on top of the barrel bridge

e) two reversing wheels in the automatic winding system, and lastly

f) the automatic unit fits on top of the movement.

Some further conclusions in the link:

http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2824/eta2824.html

Best Wishes,
Sincerely,
AP:)

[Crusader]

Too bad that the extra millimeter of the 2824 cannot be compensated by slimming the antimagnetic case. Of course, 40'000 A/m is a moot point in this case, I was just trying to find a way to keep the watch slim. 80'000 A/m is fine - although for those insisting on 80'000, let it be said that the Orfina Mark II with 100'000 (like the IWC Ingenieur) will still lead the pack. :wink:

Back to case thickness. Sinn have managed to package the 2824 in the 656 which is as slim as the 2892-based Mark XV by doing away with the antimagnetic inner back - the outer caseback of the Sinn is made from antimagnetic material, serving the double purpose of caseback and antimagnetic cover. But I have only seen this on SUG-cases, don't know whether Fricker have access to this technology.

While a 2892 would have been nice, with those time frames, I am all for the chronometer-rated 2824. I don't think the difference between the movements merits a substantial delay, and I consider the 2824 quite trustworthy, and possibly even more robust than the 2892.

[swanbourne]

Fricker used to own 70% of SUG so I'm sure that as the casemaking member of this partnership, they will know something. :wink:

Eddie

[Guntram]

While a 2892 would have been nice, with those time frames, I am all for the chronometer-rated 2824. I don't think the difference between the movements merits a substantial delay, and I consider the 2824 quite trustworthy, and possibly even more robust than the 2892.

Please don't misunderstand - I'm not dissing the 2824 at all, I think it's a great movement! And I'd also like to see the SB3 come to life sooner, rather than later.

The one thing I don't understand, though... if I read Eddie's post correctly, Fricker can't get him the 2892 before mid-08. But that doesn't imply it's sold out on the entire planet, does it? Maybe there's an opportunity to buy it elsewhere? I've never dealt with Fricker, but they might be understanding and work with someone else's delivery in this specific case?

Guntram

[swanbourne]

ETA only supply what the class as their "premier grades" to Swiss watchmakers. German (and all other countries) cannot even buy the chronometer grade 2824 & 7750 directly from ETA, which is why many non-Swiss companies employ Swiss buying agents. The 2892 has never been easy to get but as a result of ETA's stated intention of ceasing supply of movements in 2010 (is it 2010?), there is a chronic shortage of 289X and chronometer grade movements, hence Damasko's inability to supply any finished watches since August 2006.

I wrote to ETA several years ago and whilst they were happy to supply me with the standard 2824, they would not supply me with any of the 289X movements.

Eddie

[Guntram]

Not meaning to be a wiseass, but for all I know, ETA has not announced they'd cease supplying movements. They do intend to stop the sales of kits, though. So from 2010 onwards, manufacturers can only buy complete movements, as opposed to components which are sold separately today.

At any rate, I'll take your word for it that 289X are hard to come by. :(

Guntram

[A.Pottinger]

They are clearly creating a market for another movement making company or conutry to fill the demand, once the quality is pushed up, which it inevitaby shall be.

Protectionsit posilcy that will result in isolation and insularity, whichalready has, it's that it has been to their advantage as the competition is not there to fulfill the demand of aprticular markets of customers.

This, as most things in life and indeed esp. business, do.

I really do not like that aspect of not selling to 'foreigners'. What sort of thing is that about, if they are so confident about the quality of their product? Oh, so you can have an agent, whom they almost certainly know in at aleast several cases, is an agent for foreign buyers, yet they continue to do business over a very long period.

Swatch strangled Lemania, not ETA doing this. What are they about, and where do they think they are going with this? It's not going to last forever, chaps, and people will have little sympathy if the competition does a good job if it.

AP

[swanbourne]

Bump

[abraxas]

Bump

Que?

john

[MichaelBe]

What are the final specs for this watch?

movement, anti-mag etc..?

Thanks,
Michael

[swanbourne]

It's all in this thread. I bumped it to make it easy to find for someone who phoned distraught that the SB2 was discontinued.

Eddie

[MichaelBe]

oops

I didn't know if you decided on the movement...