/fa/ - Fashion

>>14179657
>...they can only be serviced by Omega
Just be aware that this is PRECISELY the point. The incentive here by companies is that you keep on buying new watches, not have older ones that you service forever. My watchman, like many independents, cannot get the parts from Omega any longer, as they've officially cut off independents. This means any new Omega you buy will likely have to be serviced by Omega anyway, and if there is a need to replace any parts, you'll have to go to Omega for it.

But it's the only way they can continue the revenue stream because millenials either don't wear watches or have the disposable income to buy them in the numbers we used to see a decade ago with the last remnants of the older generations. A damn shame, but that's the way of the world.

>>14179803
I honestly don't know what the legal issues are regarding the rights to the movement. You'll notice that in every article about the new 321, they state that it was re-engineered from an older 321. Now, they could go to Lemania and just get the original made, I presume...but since they're not, then obviously this is a case of changing the 321 enough that they don't have to pay rights to Lemania. It's just a guess, but it makes sense given what is happening.

>>14179804
Understood; steel moonwatch in my view is unlikely. But it's possible given that they are using it as a cash cow. What should they do if given the choice? Either put it into Platinum and Gold versions that no fan of the Moonwatch would ever have the funds to buy, or put it into a 'limited' edition in steel for, say 8,000$ (so, more than a normal Moonwatch, but less than the starting price of an original cal. 321 in decent condition). That's what I think they'll do, incidentally.

>>14179805
Check Chrono24.com for normal prices...it all depends on condition, originality of parts, etc., but >>14179806 is correct...around 10k starting.

>>13672131
I honestly don't know of any other watches that use the Omega 861/1861 chronograph, though other houses of course produce their own chronographs.

I think you have to consider the function of the Speedmaster in Omega's current lineup. There are about 4 generations now of people who may feel some connection to NASA, and more specifically, the magic that was the landing on the moon. Then you also have people who have no relatives who were involved but still want a connection to the event or the general fun science shit (like me). The same people who buy Hasselblad cameras, or the same ones who have little model rockets they build with their boys.

The Current Speedy is sold on this promise: that it's your connection to NASA and all the greatness of that. This is why they cost so much. The technology of the timepiece is 50 years old...and there's nothing wrong with it, but it should be sold at a price that is consistent with 50 year old technology. Obviously, it's not.

Furthermore, to add fuel to the fire, the movement is not the same movement that was used in the original moon watches or the ones initially tested by NASA. Granted, the new movement used now was retested some time in the 70's I think and it was approved, so unless you're a stickler like many space nuts are, you're getting a watch that could easily be worn on the outside of an EVA suit today. So, perhaps you're paying a premium for that.

I don't know if it's stupid to say, but I'll say it anyway. Any watch you pay for that costs more than 10$ is a luxury, and as such you have to ask yourself seriously if 'a sensible price' is even achievable with a luxury item. You're not buying it because you need it, but because you like it and want it. Does that help at all?