I loved the manual winding of my Moonwatch when I had it. Can't see any downside apart from the fact that an auto is likely to be more accurate as mainspring tension is maintained. Didn't bother me at all.
Aaaahh, so you were actually being a cantankerous condescending tool...
I'm new to this forum, not to forums in general, I'm more than happy with the fact that, due to your post count and tenure, you "win at internet watches", but don't talk down to me like I'm some precocious child.
A heritage is a strong thing, and 50 years in use with an agency that goes into space is a powerful testament to a watches quality, ruggedness and suitability for purchase in the face of a salesman stating "manual winding is a negative"
You don't need to be a knob.
EDIT: I realise comments of this nature may get me warned or chucked out, I'll accept that if it happens, but I'm not having that kind of attitude...
Now.. would you like to start over?
Hi, I'm Simon, very nice to meet you, I look forward to speaking with you further on this forum
Last edited by tekbow; 7th January 2015 at 13:51.
^ bit harsh
I have a potentially silly question, how water resistant are they (if at all) ?
I think he was having a gentle poke at you (yes, that counts as gentle around here) about your enthusiasm for the Speedy's spaceflight heritage. We all love a Speedy, but the space angle is sometimes made a bit too much of (and I say that as a huge space geek myself). Buzz Aldrin has said that his Speedmaster was basically an optional accessory: "Few things are less necessary when walking around on the Moon than knowing what time it is in Houston, Texas."
Yes, Jack Swigert used his to time a couple of rocket burns, but since they only lasted a few minutes, any working watch would have served that purpose. It wouldn't even have to be a chronograph. The Speedmaster isn't the only choice of astronauts, by any means; Rolex watches also seem to be popular, probably because Apollo astronauts were drawn from the ranks of military and test pilots. There is some basis for me getting excited about my GMT because it has 'spaceflight heritage'.
Nonetheless, the Speedmaster is the Moonwatch, and that has a lot to do with its popularity. Buying one if you're not an astronaut is no more or less silly than people buying diver's watches when they never go diving.
I think you need to dial back your reactions a bit; sarcastic banter is, in fact, the default mode of communication here. Just reply in kind. When someone's really cross with you, you'll know.
Tekbow, the advice above is well-put imo - and I've been around this forum for over10 years now...
Simon
I think.. the point that's being missed here is not my devotion to omega marketing rhetoric, what I was driving at was in order to achieve flight qualification, the watches selected were rigorously tested. The speedy came out on top. And presumably it has to be requalified once in a while, so presumably, it still passes those tests..
Therefore, my spiel on it being good enough for nasa, uses that as its basis, not the romanticism of space travel. Just like I have a Rolex sub because I know that quite a few divers in the north sea choose to wear em as well as rig crew in various parts of the world. They buy them because they're tough.
And I've been a member of many forums were gently poking was the norm. That didn't come across as a gentle poke, that came across as "haze the noob because of my mighty post count"... I work in the oil industry, you don't get by on rigs without having a sense of humour and being able to take an elbow.. that was condescending. If it was meant in any other way it was poorly worded.
However, if we're prepared to say ok that was badly worded but wasn't meant in the way it came across, then I'm prepared to say sorry for the harsh response and leave it at that.
You can read my post count without your specs grandad?
Peace? With you?
Aaaahh, so you were actually being a cantankerous condescending tool
don't talk down to me like I'm some precocious child.
You don't need to be a knob.
EDIT: I realise comments of this nature may get me warned or chucked out, I'll accept that if it happens, but I'm not having that kind of attitude...
Now.. would you like to start over?
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Last edited by tekbow; 7th January 2015 at 16:06.
Can`t believe a seemingly innocuous thread like this has degenerated into bickering.
As for the astronaut link with the Speedy, I think it's fair to say that Omega have milked it big-style over the years. That's not to say I don`t admire the Speedy Moonwatch, I`m a big fan and I believe it's the purest incarnation of the Speedy (and therefore the one to own), but I certainly wouldn`t let the NASA thing influence my thinking on whether or not to buy one.
I don`t usually get involved in spats, but my advice to Tekbow is simple: Wind your neck in buddy, and get a sense of humour or you won`t enjoy this place. You attracted a bit of sarcasm and you over-reacted grossly. Generally, we try and avoid calling each other cantankerous tools etc on here even when it's justified.
Paul
Look, I get it, he's been around here for ages, you've probably known him a while, from being around, I'm the newb kicking up a stink.
But it wasn't a good natured bit of sarcasm. It wasnt jolly jab. it was someone being ignorant. Take a look at my other posts, I've been polite and good natured. and also not the first on this thread to comment on the nasa thing, which I explained wasn't about the romanticism of the space age. It was about cold hard testing. Snoopy award from the astronauts themselves? Omega over play it yes, but but it's history is it's history.
So no, I don't do letting passive aggressive bullies snipe.
I offered to apologise, I offered to draw a line under it, but somehow I need to wind my neck in for making a point?
Alright then, all quiet on the western front from here on in.
DB9 yes and their existence at work is a miserable one. Mine fortunately is not
Last edited by tekbow; 8th January 2015 at 10:32.
So anyway, I thought I remembered reading a good piece about the actual NASA testing process recently. Here it is: Qualifying a watch to fly to the Moon
Executive summary:
- Timekeeping test
- Hot test (200ºF)
- Cold test (0ºF)
- Vacuum test
- High-pressure test
- Humidity test (95%)
- 100% oxygen atmosphere test
- G-load tests (40G)
- Vibration tests (2000Hz)
- Acoustic test (130dB)
Only the Speedy survived all the tests. The other watches included a Wittnauer chronograph, a Valjoux 72-based Rolex Cosmograph, and a Breitling Navitimer Cosmonaute (source: Omega Speedmaster NASA Testing Process) and none of them made it. The Breitling failed on timekeeping, the Rolex failed on humidity (the second hand warped), and the Wittnauer's crystal blew out in the pressure tests.
So that is actually quite impressive. I don't know if anyone has re-run those tests recently, on modern watches - it would be a fun experiment.
bitfield
Thanks for that, that's going to be a very interesting read, it's about the only Omega that I really want to own sometime in the future.
Well this thread got a little out of hand, to get it back on track a little I am thankful to those that have responded to me. Your opinions have helped a lot.
The NASA thing has come up and I must admit the heritage does add a little bit of glamour to the watch for me. It's not the only reason I want one of course, but a nice little cherry on top of an already great looking watch!
If I do get one I'll be sure to put up some pics!
Apparently one of the accounts goes that nasa weren't sure whether an automatic would work when they first came outt, so they stuck with the speedy. Am sure that people who work out trips to the moon could figure out the physics of a rotor, perhaps a pinch of salt required there.
Is the speedy still the only mechanical on the qualified list? I think there's a Seiko and couple of gshocks too these days
Auto-winding's no advantage in space because you don`t exactly move far when you're in a space capsule (allegedly). and you certainly don`t move quickly.
Paul
I can hear the rotor in my little Longines spinning for some seconds after as little movement as moving my hand up a banister while climbing stairs, or even the wrist-flick done when needing to know the time in a hurry. If anything I think it would spin for longer in space as there would be no gravity pulling it down!
+1 just had my colleagues tag in my hand and could gear the rotor whirring with very little movement
I love manual winds, it feels more personal
I guess you're the one who's put himself in charge, then?
It's a good thing I don't work for a satirical magazine that pokes fun at the fundamentalist leanings of branded Veblen-good fanatics - I wouldn't want some humourless, arrogant stevedore waving an AK around looking for retribution whilst suggestively fingering his Speedo! Sorry, Speedy!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
As I understand it, NASA required a chronograph, first tests were carried out in 1965 at which time only manual chronos existed, first auto chrono arrived in '69 from Breitling/Heuer alliance or Zenith, there is debate on this matter too. I'm sure there were at least 2 subsequent tests carried out in later years, again the Speedmaster came out on top and included flight qualification in '78 for the first Shuttle missions.
Of course the Speedy/NASA thing has been done to death but if you were a company out to shift units, why wouldn't you capatilise on the link, it wouldn't make much commercial sense not to name drop one of the top 5 events of 20th century history.
The Speedy is a legend, end of, and will get an appreciative nod from the majority of watch folk out there because it's interesting, still is to this day and for an asking price that isn't outrageous. Just don't forget to wind it......and er, don't go swimming with it.
Hah, suggest reconciliation and your response is along the lines of "I'm not doing what you say"?
As for that second comment, I will treat it as the contemptuous, pretentious, insensitive, offensive Shite it is.. families lost loved ones in Paris 24 hours ago, and you're going to use that as route for having a meaningless pop at me? You're a disgrace.
Listen, you're not half as witty or smart as you think you are, and if the messages of congratulation building up in my inbox from members newb through to grandmaster are anything to go by, I'm not alone in my assessment.
Why don't you just stop instead of going for that last resounding sting that will never get the reaction you've played out in your mind?
Last edited by tekbow; 8th January 2015 at 11:46.
This needs to end now, FFS !
Two points emerging from this thread........I won`t add further comment on the first because I think it's obvious to most of us.
On the second point, the old 'WR to 50metres' issue has come up, with people making the inference that this is minimal WR and therefore the watch is no good near water. That's rubbish. 50metres is a lot of water-resistance in the real world, and the watch would stand up to normal swimming should the wearer choose to do this. Personally I wouldn`t because I don`t like to get watches knocked about, and I don`t see the point in wearing a watch whilst I swim.
People lose sight of reality with the WR issue. The only weak spot is the crown seal which could potentially wear with use. However, this can be minimised by applying a trace of silicone grease to the pendant tube every 12 months........but that hardly adds up to more frequent servicing as implied previously. Simply pull the crown out to handset, touch the pendant tube with a spot of silicone grease, and it'll lubricate the seal thus minimising wear.....simple! At the risk of prolonging the 'astronaut' connection.....it ain`t rocket science.
To discount a watch because it's 'only water-resistant to 50 metres' doesn`t make sense for most applications .
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 8th January 2015 at 18:11.
Storm in a tea cup? maybe call it a day or take it to PM chaps.
personally I really like a manual wind and its one if the things that appeals to me about a speedmaster or a heuer bundeswehr. I had slight reservations about their water resistance but if rated for 50m, normal day to day wear would be fine for me. {why didn't I jump on the heuer on SC}
I've just read this thread because I prefer manual wind to automatic, I love my Speedy and I have an interest in the history of manned spaceflight.
The watch discussion - very interesting, and as Sara suggested I can see no reason why an automatic wouldn't wind perfectly happily with the movement of an astronaut's arm in the confines of an Apollo Command Module.
The bickering - well put it this way, unlike some on here I don't know either andrew or tekbow but judging by tekbow's contribution to this thread up to the point andrew stepped in with the unwarranted and unfunny sarcasm, and the fact tekbow's tried to apologise and draw a line under it, there's only one person who comes out of this with a modicum of dignity, and it's not andrew.
As for the quoted comment above, well that's just a disgrace, nothing less.
I meant to add that the two Apollo 13 mid-course correction burns timed by Jack Swigert on his Omega and referred to in an earlier post were 15 seconds and 22.4 seconds, rather than the "minutes" suggested. So in those circumstances it was probably far easier to use a chronograph to time them accurately.
Here's the shot. It's not my watch but it's so unusual to see a Speedy near water let alone in it, I grabbed a copy. While I'm sure Paul's 100% correct about the reality of daily WR rated at 50M, while he wouldn't wear it swimming for his reasons, nervousness, unfounded or not would be mine.
I'm with the manual wind lovers :-)
I've just picked up my Panerai out of the box and it was almost down to zero on its power reserve. Amazingly, it's still bang on accurate and the manual winding it needed to get the power reserve full is what's it's all about. The interaction between man and machine :-)