I once saw a fellow swimming in the Caribbean wearing his ‘Ed White’ I have to say I winced a bit but it was fine apparently.
I would not swim with my Speedmaster but I tend not to wear it on holiday.
Last edited by Sinnlover; 19th August 2019 at 19:42. Reason: Take out the thread creep
Love my Speedy watch I got married in, most comfortable bracelet on any watch I've worn. As previously stated. If only it had 100+ wr it could be perfect, for me anyway. I hate having to take it off when I go swimming or near any water for that matter. It like having to treat it like a dress watch.
Anybody who spends any time at all on TZ won’t even go near a dripping tap wearing a Speedie ( its forum law ) anybody else will probably think 50m oh that’s all right then and jump in the water. Chances are they’ll be ok.
Instruggle to see the attraction to swimming an expensive watch regardless of the WR. Best swimming watch is a cheap casio. Only drawback to me is the security aspect, if I’m on holiday and going for a swim the watch has to be left somewhere safe, and I tend to think the safest place is on my wrist. I can cope with that dilemma, but it dan be a bit of a pain and leaving the watch on would be more convenient.Originally Posted by mikeeb1
I’ve tested Speedy pros to 5 bar, which is the rated WR, so no great surprise when they pass, but actually seeing the watchcase submerged and subjected to 5 bar does focus the mind and ir becones clear that the watch won’t leak. One problem is the pushers, operating them under water is an absolute no-no but it could happen by accident whilst swimming.
The Speedy has drawbacks, but I don’t see the WR as one of them provided the seals are in good nick.
Back when I had no sense.
Not the depths I go to it isn’t! With the rating it has I’d be afraid to use it in the shower or the pool and I’d certainly not take it on a dive.
Water resistance is the best (most practical) innovation in watchmaking because it caters to the customer’s laziness. A waterproof watch never has to be taken off and so can never be forgotten!
Practicality aside, I love the design of the speedy, I love seeing it on other people, but every time I’ve tried it on it just hasn’t made music for me.
You wouldn’t go swimming in a Sub or Sea Dweller?? I don’t get that at all. What’s the point in buying a dive watch and then treat it like a dress watch? I know it’s expensive but come on!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Showering is much worse than submerging.
Heat, soap, shampoo, steam...
Killing for seals and watches.
Omega say it’s good to fifty meters. I’ve not taken it below about ten myself, but I’d be surprised if more than a handful here has dived below a relative fifty meters as that’s really quite specialised and not a little mad without a very good reason. Your point about water resistance is all too true though.
Speedmaster is a fine watch and an excellent chrono for timing your boiled egg or pizza the design is sublime and I would agree the dial layout better than current Daytona, the Zenith Daytona’s are perfect on that score.
I have enjoyed many Alaska being my favourite however I really struggle with the winding everyone I have had has been stiff and the crown is too small to grip so I give up after a few days probably me being lazy and reliant on autos.
And I do worry about speedys and water the pushers just don’t look like they should be exposed to submersion.
That said it’s a great watch with a huge following Omega rightly capitalise on.
I would. Love a Gemini and a valet to wind it for me.
Like any watch that is too stiff to wind. It’s time for a service, or at least a drop of silicon grease on the stem. If that doesn’t make it wonderfully easy and smooth, then it really needs a service.
As for the pushers, they were first used by Omega on the Seamaster CK2077 in 1937 with cork seals. As this was advertised as a watch for swimming in, I suspect Omega were fairly confident in them by the time the first Speedmaster came along.
I’ve done pictures of a pusher stripped for lubrication somewhere and they are somewhat over engineered for the job.
Last edited by M4tt; 20th August 2019 at 08:53.
M4tt I know your a huge Omega fan ...respect I like them too particularly PO’s
But I am referring to a new Speedy Tuesday and a new plain speedy both were so tight maybe newness but the crown is tiny (flat)for the job, but I do have big digits....
I confess that any watch I bought new that didn’t wind impeccably with a silky whisper would be straight back for a bit of lubrication. I don’t know about new models as I really lost interest in new products from any company that don’t offer freely available spares and technical support. I’m a huge watch fan with a reasonably eclectic collection, but I do believe in credit where credit is due.
My Speedmaster was my first luxury brand watch I bought myself from new back in 2001 and I still own it, I love the watch and the clarity of the dial, the history etc etc etc all the good things mentioned here.... just don't seem to wear it much!!! don't no why, its not the manual wind as that doesn't bother me, it just doesn't get the wrist time compared to my other watches.
Too many Speedmaster owners mention difficulty winding it for it to be a fault with specific watches.
I suspect, to an extent, it's a technique - Some days mine will wind like butter, others I just can't get a purchase on it.
My Speedmaster had a full service a couple of years back after the mainspring broke. It came back looking and feeling like a new watch (certainly better than it had ever looked in my ownership), but the crown was still often difficult to wind.
By contrast my Breitling Cosmonaute has always been smooth and easy to wind.
M
PS I wouldn't dive in an expensive dive watch, personally, but more for fear of losing it than worries about WR. I did dive in my Longines HC a few times and my Dreadnought Voyager is my default 'long haul holiday' dive watch, but I've had both from new - I'd worry more about watches I'd bought second hand, not knowing if the seals were intact (or even present!). I wouldn't, though, dive or swim in my Speedmaster, fully serviced or not. NASA were paying under $100 a watch, so I don't suppose having a few fill up with water was a big deal in the scheme of the space programme!
Last edited by snowman; 20th August 2019 at 09:59.
I’m on the look out for a good condition speedy at the moment but from the few I’ve held the hand winding has not been an issue
No, IMO.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Most iconic?
Hmm... close but not quite.
I think Rolex Submariner is even more iconic.
Maybe, I'd be hard pressed to choose between them, to be honest.
M
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
The 120th post is probably not the best place to point out that the adjective "iconic" is not qualifiable. Something is either iconic or it isn't.
The number of people regarding the object in question as iconic may be a better question - do more people regard the Speedmaster, as opposed to any other watch model, as iconic would be a better way of putting it.
Then of course we have the little matter of pedantry.......
I'm astonished to note that I never contributed to this thread... anyway, it's a no from me.
Lovely watches, with great history, far nicer design than a Daytona imo and massive versatility for straps, but...
...having owned one for a while, I found it a little too small and like many others I think for a hand wound movement it's far too difficult to wind.
I also feel the water resistance is not good enough. Mine was a 2005 limited edition with no known service history, so there's no way I would have immersed it in water anyway, but even new ones worry me a bit.
Simon
There is,of course, no way to settle this question. Unless you simply want to count the number of watches sold.
For what it’s worth, I doubt that ‘greatness’ rests on routine stuff like Water Resistance . There has to be something unique and remarkable to win this prize...like going to the moon (oops!).
The best I am not sure about, but for sure the one with most historical value.
Or has it...?
M
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
When I owned one, the only comment I had was that it looked a bit geeky. Anyway I prefer the vintage with step dial or the modern ck2998 variants, especially the blue.
I guess the thing is that the Speedmaster started as a single watch, that grew into a range, whose plethora of models and sales has almost undoubtedly propped up Omega for the last 50 years.
And the main thing is that you can still buy the original model (almost), and people still do.
Clearly, I have no stats to back up the claim, but that NASA lacky putting a Speedmaster into that tray of watches to be assessed has to be the single most valuable person to Omega, ever.
And that's fascinating.
But it doesn't make it the best
D
Speedy and Sub equal.
For someone who wants one great watch, the Speedy or a Sub have the market cornered depending on budget.
For someone who wants a collection, one or both is often the anchor.
So, either way, it’s very arguable.
If the sole thing you care about is owning a reproduction of the first watch worn on the moon, then you could say with considerable certainty that it is the best watch.
For me a speedie and a sub are two of my three watch grail collection
Whats the third?
I probably wouldn’t wear a speedie in the water but I’d definitely wear a dive watch such as a sub or sd to the beach or pool. Nothing better than wearing trunks and a lovely watch around the pool. Not that I own either!
I think they can take a bit of steam and showering.. and a dip in the pool.
Some info from the NASA program (1965) per watch requirements:
STATEMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS:
- Accuracy – Must not gain or lose more than 5 seconds over a 24 hour period. Desirable to have an accuracy equal to or better than 2 seconds per 24 hours.
- Pressure Integrity – The chronometer must be immune to large variances in pressure to include a range from 50 feet of water positive pressure to a negative pressure of 10 millimeters of mercury.
- Readability – All disks, bands, and figures must be readable in various lighting conditions. The chronograph must be readable under both “red” and “white” lighting conditions to or beyond a 5 foot candle illumination intensity. Either a black face with white figures and numerals or black on white is satisfactory. The chronograph should not cause glare at the high illumination levels. A stainless steel case with a satin finish is preferred.
- The chronograph must have stop-start elapsed dials with
- Seconds to 1 minute
- Minutes to 30 minutes
- Hours to 12 hours or greater.
- The chronograph must be shockproof, waterproof, and anti-magnetic. In addition, the face cover must be shatterproof.
- The chronograph may be powered electrically, manually or the self-winding type; however, it must be capable of being manually wound and re-set.
- Reliability – the Manufacturer must guarantee the watch to operate properly under normal conditions for at least one year time period. Performance data and specifications should be supplied by the manufacturer. Manufacturer guarantee and/or warranty should also be included.
Out of the 10 manufacturers to receive the request, only 4 submit a watch for NASA consideration. The Longines 235T, the Rolex Cosmograph, a Hamilton and the Omega Speedmaster Professional are all received. The Hamilton was discounted prior to testing as it was not a wrist mounted piece.
The first qualification program for the NASA watches was conducted in 1965. To be “flight-qualified by NASA for all manned space missions”, a wrist chronograph must pass all of the following tests numerous times without failure of any kind:
- High Temperature – 48 hours at a temperature of 160°F (71°C) followed by 30 minutes at 200°F (93°C). For the high temperature tests, atmospheric pressure shall be 5.5 psi (0.35 atm) and the relative humidity shall not exceed 15%.
- Low Temperature – Four hours at a temperature of 0°F (-18° C)
- Temperature Pressure Chamber – pressure maximum of 1.47 x 10exp-5 psi (10exp-6 atm) with temperature raised to 160°F (71°C). The temperature shall then be lowered to 0°F (-18°C) in 45 minutes and raised again to 160°F in 45 minutes. Fifteen more such cycles shall be completed.
- Relative Humidity – A total time of 240 hours at temperatures varying between 68°F and 160°F (20°C and 71°C, respectively) in a relative humidity of at least 95%. The steam used shall have a pH value between 6.5 and 7.5.
- Pure Oxygen Atmosphere – The test item shall be placed in an atmosphere of 100% oxygen at a pressure of 5.5 psi (0.35 atm) for 48 hours. Performance outside of specification tolerance, visible burning, creation of toxic gases, obnoxious odors, or deterioration of seals or lubricants shall constitute a failure. The ambient temperature shall be maintained at 160°F (71°C).
- Shock – Six shocks of 40g each, in six different directions, with each shock lasting 11 milliseconds.
- Acceleration – The test item shall be accelerated linearly from 1g to 7.25g within 333 seconds, along an axis parallel to the longitudinal spacecraft axis.
- Decompression – 90 minutes in a vacuum of 1.47 x 10E-5 psi (10 E-6 atm) at a temperature of 160° F (71° C), and 30 minutes at a 200° F (93°C).
- High Pressure – The test item shall be subjected to a pressure of 23.5 psi (1.6 atm) for a minimum period of one hour.
- Vibration – Three cycles of 30 minutes (lateral, horizontal, vertical, the frequency varying from 5 to 2000 cps and back to 5 cps in 15 minutes. Average acceleration per impulse must be at least 8.8g.
- Acoustic Noise – 130dB over a frequency range from 40 to 10,000 HZ, for a duration of 30 minutes.
I snapped the chrono start button off twice when I had one, so I know the above to be true.
I think I must begrudgingly throw my vote at the feet of the Submariner - it's tough, probably the most recognisable (iconic) watch of all time and represents one of the safest financial investments you can make.
My brother would be laughing because he's got a Sub, I'm sticking with my GO....
So it will be safe in the shower then ??I think they can take a bit of steam and showering.. and a dip in the pool.
Some info from the NASA program (1965) per watch requirements:
STATEMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS:
- Accuracy – Must not gain or lose more than 5 seconds over a 24 hour period. Desirable to have an accuracy equal to or better than 2 seconds per 24 hours.
- Pressure Integrity – The chronometer must be immune to large variances in pressure to include a range from 50 feet of water positive pressure to a negative pressure of 10 millimeters of mercury.
- Readability – All disks, bands, and figures must be readable in various lighting conditions. The chronograph must be readable under both “red” and “white” lighting conditions to or beyond a 5 foot candle illumination intensity. Either a black face with white figures and numerals or black on white is satisfactory. The chronograph should not cause glare at the high illumination levels. A stainless steel case with a satin finish is preferred.
- The chronograph must have stop-start elapsed dials with
- Seconds to 1 minute
- Minutes to 30 minutes
- Hours to 12 hours or greater.
- The chronograph must be shockproof, waterproof, and anti-magnetic. In addition, the face cover must be shatterproof.
- The chronograph may be powered electrically, manually or the self-winding type; however, it must be capable of being manually wound and re-set.
- Reliability – the Manufacturer must guarantee the watch to operate properly under normal conditions for at least one year time period. Performance data and specifications should be supplied by the manufacturer. Manufacturer guarantee and/or warranty should also be included.
Out of the 10 manufacturers to receive the request, only 4 submit a watch for NASA consideration. The Longines 235T, the Rolex Cosmograph, a Hamilton and the Omega Speedmaster Professional are all received. The Hamilton was discounted prior to testing as it was not a wrist mounted piece.
The first qualification program for the NASA watches was conducted in 1965. To be “flight-qualified by NASA for all manned space missions”, a wrist chronograph must pass all of the following tests numerous times without failure of any kind:
- High Temperature – 48 hours at a temperature of 160°F (71°C) followed by 30 minutes at 200°F (93°C). For the high temperature tests, atmospheric pressure shall be 5.5 psi (0.35 atm) and the relative humidity shall not exceed 15%.
- Low Temperature – Four hours at a temperature of 0°F (-18° C)
- Temperature Pressure Chamber – pressure maximum of 1.47 x 10exp-5 psi (10exp-6 atm) with temperature raised to 160°F (71°C). The temperature shall then be lowered to 0°F (-18°C) in 45 minutes and raised again to 160°F in 45 minutes. Fifteen more such cycles shall be completed.
- Relative Humidity – A total time of 240 hours at temperatures varying between 68°F and 160°F (20°C and 71°C, respectively) in a relative humidity of at least 95%. The steam used shall have a pH value between 6.5 and 7.5.
- Pure Oxygen Atmosphere – The test item shall be placed in an atmosphere of 100% oxygen at a pressure of 5.5 psi (0.35 atm) for 48 hours. Performance outside of specification tolerance, visible burning, creation of toxic gases, obnoxious odors, or deterioration of seals or lubricants shall constitute a failure. The ambient temperature shall be maintained at 160°F (71°C).
- Shock – Six shocks of 40g each, in six different directions, with each shock lasting 11 milliseconds.
- Acceleration – The test item shall be accelerated linearly from 1g to 7.25g within 333 seconds, along an axis parallel to the longitudinal spacecraft axis.
- Decompression – 90 minutes in a vacuum of 1.47 x 10E-5 psi (10 E-6 atm) at a temperature of 160° F (71° C), and 30 minutes at a 200° F (93°C).
- High Pressure – The test item shall be subjected to a pressure of 23.5 psi (1.6 atm) for a minimum period of one hour.
- Vibration – Three cycles of 30 minutes (lateral, horizontal, vertical, the frequency varying from 5 to 2000 cps and back to 5 cps in 15 minutes. Average acceleration per impulse must be at least 8.8g.
- Acoustic Noise – 130dB over a frequency range from 40 to 10,000 HZ, for a duration of 30 minutes.
Sold mine, I always forgot to wind it in the morning just like I forget to take my blood pressure tablet...that reminds me!
Sent from my SM-A202F using TZ-UK mobile app
Not for me doesn't do anything for me .
I can't see what all the speedy fuss is about..
Planet ocean all the way
Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk
I scanned most of the thread and was interested to see that only one person went so far as to say that, yes, they thought it was the best watch. Many people are actively bashing it! A lot of thread creep, though ;)
My opinion is that it is nowhere close to being the ‘best’ watch. It’s closer to being most iconic, or most famous amongst watch fans but I think there's a great deal of hyperbole attached due to the moon connection. After years of thinking I HAD to have one in a collection I’ve realised there are many other similar watches that are objectively better and that I would rather own. If I was to have another it would be one of the auto movements and not the speedy pro
Agree...love my '57. Perfect mix of taking design cues from an original vintage design but bringing it right up to date.
I prefer the railmaster myself but not owned either. I like a simpler design without chronograph at all.
I did own a seamaster 120m quartz and it was very good quality but my Grand Seiko quartz destroys it in finishing and polishing.
I just wasted 15 minutes browsing photos of Astronauts training underwater in space suits - and I couldn't find a single shot where one was wearing a Speedy - which may say something!
I had a 10-year-old unserviced Speedy Pro - it looked great, was very accurate (+1 secs per day) and comfortable to wear. I wore it quite happily in the shower on a NATO or the bracelet, but never wore it swimming. Having said which, a friend who bought his before going to Vietnam in the 1960's as an Artillery Officer wore his in combat and training, in jungle, bush and desert, and in the surf, without worrying about it.
For me, it wasn't quite a "no worries" watch in the same way my Omega Seamaster Pro Quartz is - no pushers to worry about, no need to wind it, great WR. And the chrono display, though beautiful, was harder to read - a shortcoming of all chronographs with 30 minute sub-dials - than a good centre minute, Lemania 5100 type.
But, if Omega ever reintroduced the 376.0822 Speedy "Grail" with decent WR and the Lemania 5100 or a modern equivalent with similar layout, like the Sinn SZ01, I'd buy one like a shot.
I can both see why people like them but also be entirely cold to owning one myself - they do nothing for me.
I have tried on modern Speedmaster and they wear nice and comfortable on my wrist but for some reason none have made me reach for my wallet either.
It is generally speaking a good watch with history and pedigree, but one that I also find to be too overplayed because of its involvement in the Apollo missions and they never ending stream of limited editions from Omega.
There are far more interesting chronographs occupying its space. I would buy a B0x Breitling before a Speedmaster to be honest. Wearing my GS Spring Drive GMT Chronograph SBGC003 as I type this post....
I've owned 3 moonwatches and 2 Breitling Navitimers including a B01. The Navitimer is by far the nicer watch. Moonwatch feels very basic in comparison.
Lovely, Christian!Agree...love my '57. Perfect mix of taking design cues from an original vintage design but bringing it right up to date.
I don't think so
Controversial opinion ahead - the speedmaster moonwatch is a watch you buy, gush on the internet about it for 6 months, and then sell if cause its boring. Reduced's are too small.
Love my 1969 Speedmaster however less practical as a daily watch due to swimming often and worrying about its water tightness.
Keep toying with selling it but can’t quite decide!
Like a few watches its just a classic that even non watch geeks recognise.
It's the Manchester United of the watch world.
It's not the best. It has its moments. Arguably the most talked-about.
It does have a huge fan base though. Probably brings pleasure to the most people.
p.s. Mine is going nowhere!
Really dont know why so many are saying about water resistance, it wasn't made for that reason, it was made as a long accurate timing watch, whereas the Submariner was made for short timing dives.
Both are iconic, but the pre moon and pro moon Speedmaster's only have the bigger history, I love both on my wrist..
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
