https://www.omegawatches.com/stories...-have-lift-off
For each movement, the assembly, as well as the watch head and bracelet assembly will be performed by the same watchmaker.
https://www.omegawatches.com/stories...-have-lift-off
For each movement, the assembly, as well as the watch head and bracelet assembly will be performed by the same watchmaker.
For a pretty penny no doubt!
Moon landing anniversary edition, here we come?
Just heard.question is will this be a limited edition or more mainstream? From what's been said already i'm guessing it won't be cheap.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
This is super-exciting news! I can't wait to see what they put this in.
Fixed for Omega.For each movement, the assembly, as well as the watch head and bracelet assembly will be performed by the same watchmaker. Watch fans can expect to pay sh*tloads more for this movement, which is functionally no better than the 1861 in current Speedmasters, but needs must as we cleverly progress from flogging the Moonwatch via innumerable horrible special editions, to just making the exact same thing all over again. Comes in our new Special Edition box, containing a life-size mannequin of Buzz Aldrin.
I jest of course, but whilst quite a neat idea, it will no doubt be expensive.
Can't wait to see what they have for the 50th anniversary speedmaster.
sounds expensive!
Just read omegas statement.They say the movement is going into "production".No mention of limited.
Sent from my E6653 using TZ-UK mobile app
If is expensive, the WIS's will be fighting over it and probably be reselling it to add to their pension fund and the BP guys can have a few weeks of moaning calling them all the names under the sun.
If it sells cheap, no one will buy it and it will be a big non event. Omega are not fools and are good at shafting their loyal and dedicated customers with special editions, so I think it is a fair bet that the prices will be high.
Reading the Hodinkee article, has this basically been redeveloped as opposed to totally copying the original design?
Also as a non Speedmaster aficionado - were all the toolings and designs lost/destroyed in 1968?
This from the Hodinkee article:
“the OMEGA team compiled extensive historical research and original plans to reconstruct the movement as accurately as possible. Going even further, they also used “tomography” technology (digital scanning method) to see inside the true Speedmaster ST 105.003 timepiece that astronaut Eugene “Gene” Cernan wore on the moon during the Apollo 17 mission in 1972. Cernan was the last man to walk on the lunar surface and his Speedmaster is now housed at the OMEGA Museum in Bienne. Its Calibre 321 provided the perfect design criteria for OMEGA to follow.”
It is a ‘total copy’ of the original design. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a cal. 321 I don’t suppose.
"This movement will not be used in a limited edition watch, but there will be a limitation in production for the reasons stated above. Omega reveiled that there will be something in gold, for sure. Also, this movement will not be used in any of the upcoming Apollo 11 Limited Edition models in 2019."
https://www.fratellowatches.com/omeg...ck-production/
"Left unsaid in the announcement is the purpose of the revived cal. 321. But given that 2019 is the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing, it is an easy guess.
"In the cal. 321 announcement Omega specifically mentions the Speedmaster ref. 105.003 “Ed White” and also the Speedmaster ref. 105.012. And rumours have been circulating that the 50th anniversary watches will include two vintage Speedmaster remakes. Stayed tuned for more."
http://watchesbysjx.com/2019/01/omeg...-movement.html
"This is probably the single most exciting piece of movement-related information I've seen in over 20 years of reading and writing about watches."
- Hodinkee
Behold, the march of progress!
What is most sad is that in neither the Omega nor the Hodinkee pieces is there any mention of Lemania, the designers and makers of the 321.
They describe in detail how they used new scanning methods to re-engineer the movement (which proves that it was never their design), but nowhere is the true credit given.
Shame on both
Dave
Very clever as usual from swatch group. No improvements = no development cost. The original movement as well as the 861 are not chronometers and timing results are by current standards very poor, but noone will complain because its "authentic". The movement is very basic to work on so the "single watchmaker" spiel sounds like its an Lange&Söhne but infact production will be quite quick as you can train a technician to assemble it tbh.
Wonder what it will do to the 321 market, and if the new parts will fit the old.
Very rare I read Hodinkee articles, too sweet and sickly for my palate. This article’s no exception, written by a self-confessed Speedmaster Fanboy.
Some incarnations of the Speedy are OK, I even own two myself, but I find it hard to understand the pedastal these watches are placed upon by some. The classic moonwatch design’s a classic, long may it continue, the latest model is still v. similar to the late 60s one that went to the moon and there’s no harm in mentioning this in the advertising.........but that’s as far as it really should go.
Resurrecting a 1946 chronograph movement is an absolutely bizarre move in my opinion. It seems ironic that Omega have chosen to do this whilst pushing the technical boundaries with their recent developments, a marketing card they play strongly, so how can both philosophies sit comfortable together? We all know that the mechanical wristwatch is something of an anachronism, but resurrecting a movement that was last produced 50 years ago really is a step too far. Would anyone buy a car with a 1960s engine fitted?
I’ve no doubt they’ll play a few clever tricks to ensure these 321s are better than the originals, but the whole project is yet another example of Omega squeezing the very last drops from the NASA lemon.
Surely it’s time to focus more on looking forwards than backwards? Maybe those of us old enough to remember the moon landing don’t shroud it in mystique in the same way that the 40-somethings do?
Edit: Agree 100% with Sweet’s comments! All the guff about scanning etc to get the dimensions for the re-engineering..........why not dig out the original bloody design drawings!!
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 8th January 2019 at 19:47.
Pretty much sums up the Hodinkee crowd. Always harken back to the “Good old days” when watches were 34-38mm the perfect size, the romance of the movements etc, time worn leather straps.
The only thing that is authentic on Hodinkee are the watches., the team are no more than kids who no one liked at school and spent too much time playing with there small winders by themselves.
They fit very nicely into the current fashion niche for retro within the watch market and their devoted followers are afraid to buy anything unless the Hodinkee team have given it their stamp of approval.
Would Rolex bring back the Zenith movement, no because they have moved on and developed what they consider a superior product. Omega are just showing how devoid they are of ideas that they have to constantly return to the past to keep their fan base happy, cannot afford an original piece, no worries we will just trot out a reedition for you and you can give us lots of money.
The 321 belonged to a certain time and it should remain there, appreciated and admired but not rehashed for what is simply another cash grab from Omega.
As a newbie to the whole watch thing.. and still very naive when it comes to movements, I'm curious..is the 321 that good!!!, and would it compare to the top movements of today.. I like a bit a retro, but it needs to improve on the original.. we still have the bmw 3 series, but it's always improving..
Yes, it is that good if you are into movement aesthetics. Nothing compares to the view of a well finished manual wound chronograph with lateral coupling. If you want a new one your choices are basically limited to ALS, PP, VC and MB today broadly in the £40k - £60k bracket. If this omega comes in at £15-£20k it would occupy a unique market position. If it stacks up and is available this will be my 2nd and last purchase of 2019. Excited!
Am I missing something?
Why would Omega bring back the 321 & not fit it into the 50th anniversary?
Surely that would have been the only reason to bring it back. Doesn’t make any sense to me.
This bit about scanning the movement is part publicity and part practicality I expect. They have probably lost the original drawings and tooling, so need to scan the parts into a modern CAD system to drive the CNC tooling to make the movement parts.
Your guess as good as mine but they need to recover their development costs and suggestion is there will be more hand finishing etc. Would love to see it cheaper of course but I would part with £15k if the rest of the watch is up to scratch. There’s nothing comparable at that price.
There’s nothing comparable in that no other manufacturer wants to do that....wouldn’t it make more sense to buy an original 321? Because, no matter how this is spun, this won’t be a true replica,,they are using different materials for a start.
I can see the marketing attraction, but the more you look, the odder it seems. It can never be more than a copy, although it will no-doubt sell very well. Good luck to Omega, but I’d stick to a plain old 861.
I would very much argue against excluding excellent vertical clutch systems. Surely vertical clutch is progress beyond lateral systems?
I think they're positioning this watch against the Daytona - though grey market pricing, so I do agree on the £15k price range. But the question is, will the public be able to buy this as opposed to the Daytona? I'm not so sure with all this 'assembled' but one person nonsense.
Edit to add - thanks Dave for the response. I fully agree.
Last edited by crazyp; 9th January 2019 at 11:48.
I agree that a vertical clutch is progress to a certain extent; smoother engagement, robustness, ability to leave the chronograph running, ease of service. But such movements are better as workhorses and covered up imho. Rolex 4130 is probably the epitome of that approach and a very fine movement for what it is. I just would not want to look at it.
Move up to a manual winder and that clutch needs to get about of the way for me. The only example I can readily recall of an exposed manual winder with a vertical clutch is the movement in the LUC 1963 which, as beautifully finished as it is, looks ungainly to me.
Thinking about it there actually is a stainless steel competitor to the potential new Omega that I had earlier forgotten about, namely the green Montblanc 1858 that launched this year. Also with a revived vintage movement it is a very similar proposition. It retails at £24,400 in the UK. I don’t imagine (though one can only hope) that the Omega will be finished to quite that level but the price point of the Montblanc leaves plenty of room for a mid-high teens pricing imo.
I can't wait for Rolex to start production of Hans Wilsdorf's 1910 movement. I wonder if it will be in stainless?
Some excellent points and I can accept your view on the Daytona - not that pretty indeed! I rather like the LUC but I can appreciate your comments with it looking ungainly.
The MB is essentially Minerva re-imagined - not going to complain with that, Minerva movements are lovely. The Omega finishing level will be interesting - but it has to be up there because they're promoting this whole 'one-person' assembling a single watch.
In a sense though, the ability to perfectly replicate something from the past that’s no longer available is a very modern phenomenon that’s been coming for a while, and is the inevitable destination of the re-issue trend. The use of tomography (3D scanning using X-rays to create a model on a computer, the same as in a hospital scan) of a particular historical watch is a bit of a gimmick, but the intention is to create the impression of a kind of Star Trek ‘replicator’ process. It’s not just a modern re-issue, they are implying, it’s a perfect clone, scanned from an actual moon mission watch, and with a bit of hand craftsmanship thrown in for good measure.
While I’m not that keen on spending over the odds for a Speedie made using this process, it does have some appeal when I think of other unobtainable watches. It does however open Pandora’s Box, as we enter a world where rare objects can be perfectly recreated using computerised 3D scanning. We were inevitably going to get there, but the Speedy might push us over the line, and it could prove quite disruptive. Put me down for an official cloned VC222 ;-)
Last edited by Itsguy; 8th January 2019 at 21:43.
I think it is odd that they do this, and yet it is fitting.
I give credit to Omega for a lot of their movement innovation in recent times.
For a mass producer to adopt Co-axial, move to non-magnetic silicone hairsprings, add twin barrels and to move a substantial part of thie offering over to their timezone-settable watches (8500, 8900 and so forth) is intelligent and sensible innovation in mechanical watch technology.
An earlier poster complained that Omega are not innovating at all, but I disagree totally.
At the same time they have introduced some well thought out new ranges, notably the Globemaster, which is incredibly well-specified, elegant and practical, but also the Aqua Terra, following on from the Planet Ocean.
That is a lot of major new ranges, all in the last 10 or so years.
But they also very much understand that their heritage-inspired market needs feeding, and seem to approach it in a number of different ways. Not all of those appeal to us, but we must admit we may not be dead centre of the target audience.
The Speedmaster Professional is left alone, but at the same time it is hemmed in at all sides by LEs of differing taste and success. All retro
And yet they have also given us Speedmasters with the new movement tech as well. Plus, the Seamaster Master 300 Coaxials use all the new movement tech in a very retro-inspired case. Retro on the outside only.
And now they announce that they are really pressing on by re-introducing a movement which was superceded 50 years ago. Retro on the inside. I wonder what it will go in?
Is it a step too far? Hodinkee's ecstatic reaction would seem to indicate no, but I think there is enough sense expressed in this forum to show that it does look a little like the emperors new clothes.
"Look people, aren't we clever? We have used a dedicated team of experts with a secret codename to re-invent a movement we considered obsolete 50 years ago?"
If this were April 1st, I think we might take this announcement as a naughty poisson d'Avril from Bienne.........
But it isn't, and we have further proof that Omega, despite doing some very creditworthy stuff, also continues to scatter their heritage back at us with no plan whatsoever.
Dave
^^^^Interesting analysis Dave. I agree in Omega being quite forward thinking in terms of materials and movements. I do find it odd in this context for wanting to re-make exactly the same movement from 1968. Surely we've moved on? Is this thus only for the real hardcore?
Lastly - is the fact that it being originally a Lemania movement the reason why Omega had to re-engineer backwards this movement?
Edit to add - about the lack of creativity in the watch industry. We've been through a whole cycle the last few years of re-imagining/re-issuing classic designs. And now this has extended to movements. Depressing when you think about it like that.
Last edited by crazyp; 9th January 2019 at 01:01.
As I said n my first post here, I truly believe that this re-scanning is entirely due to the original design materials still residing with Lemania, and all this re-engineering guff is a bit sad when they should really be crediting Lemania with the design, rather than trying to snatch credit for themselves as a "re-design".Originally Posted by gruntfuttock
I think we have to acknowledge that there are only so many combinations when it comes to an analogue watch design, and with so many lovely vintage designs to be inspired by, I still see merit in re-imagining old ones.
But I do think that when you do so, it is important to use all of the modern technology at your disposal to improve the original without ruining it.
As a result, I see the (most likely) amazingly expensive re-engineering of the 321 as a bit of a sideshow - if I want a watch with this movement I will search out an old Lemania (or even a Tissot) and save myself the price of a daily runabout.
Dave
I am somewhat stunned.
Nobody seems to realise all drawings, rights and information at Lemania are in the Swatch group. I see no problem whatsoever in just getting the rights that are easily available and then continue restarting 321 production.
After all the 861/1861 are just slightly changed 321's, they are still in production and until recently the 321 (well, about the same) was sold by Nouvelle Lémania to Patek Philippe.
The whole tomography story on the 105.003 Cernan wore sounds like utter BS and I cannot believe it.
Omega has a load of 321's in their museum they could easily dismantle and scan. This story is really unbelievable. Further, backward engineering on the 1861/861 would have been much easier and I suppose cheaper.
I rather believe one of the earlier remarks: customers will be shafted and get the privilege to pay over 10 k for something that basically was 3200 Dutch guilders in 1998 (approx 1500 Euro) (albeit in in 1861 guise).
I think I'll just pass.
Last edited by HappyJack; 9th January 2019 at 07:36.