/fa/ - Fashion

>>16002490
The new Speedy has significant problems aesthetically. In short:
1) The case is not compatible with the previous Speedy bracelets without significant alterations. I'm sure Omega did this to make more money, but it's still bullshit.
2) The aesthetic layout of the dial is fucked because the markers for sub-seconds are less dense (3 per second rather than 5). While this makes the second-hand for the chronograph accurate in terms of where it sits when you stop the chronograph, it 'opens up' the outside of the dial, making the dial look wide-eyed to the point of perhaps having lost a chromosome. They should have done 6 divisions of the second instead of 3.
3) They changed the chronograph second hand to have the lume arrow nearer the tip. This once again opens up the middle of the dial...making it look even more autistic.
4) The lugs are slightly shorter...making the case look fatter. I have no idea what they were thinking here.

The reason the 1960's Speedmaster has been only altered slightly aesthetically since 1967 is because it is a perfect design aesthetically with everything in balance. As soon as you fuck with the balance, things look inferior.

I have my gripes about the 321 reissue as well (why did they make doo-doo brown lume plots and a sapphire crystal?), but it's no where near as bad as the new 3861. At this point, I will still end up wanting to buy an original Cal. 321 from 1968-69 because it's better than the alternatives. A sad situation.

What do you think about it?

>>15687508
Sitting in customs....c'mon customs!

>>15390298
It depends Anon. As much as I love the general aesthetic direction Omega has taken, ever since the late 90s they've been using every trick in the book to boost their recommended price into a range that could potentially threaten Rolex. There was a time when Omega and Oris were almost at parity for the watches that had ETA movements, and for a long time Omega was a working-man's watch that wasn't as expensive as a Rolex but not necessarily less reliable. Even in the 60's, my Dad was telling me the other day that at least in the shops, Rolex was 'considered the best, but also the most expensive, and was a status symbol the way that Omega, Longines and others were not'. That's probably one of the reasons he got his Seamaster around 68 or 69, and he still wears it happily to this day because he's always been a 'one-and-done' kinda guy. But there were definitely alternatives that were as beautiful or as mechanically sound. Zenith would have been a great option back then too...hell, even their pocketwatches were beating the shit out of Hamilton at the time.

Even the modern Longines...there are a few that use excellent ETA or Valjoux movements and are literally one-and-done watches. The cases might look awful after a few years of wear, but there's nothing wrong with the actual performance of the movement or ease of servicing. For a long time I had wavered between the two actually, because I like what 1990-2010 Longines was doing. Things change of course, but I think that generation could be also put into the basket.

Omega today in my view still can be a one-and-done if you like their aesthetic and will pay the price for the Master Chronometer movements (plus the inevitable problem of having them only serviced by Omega and not by an independent). If I liked the Globemaster, for instance, I could easily see myself wearing that for the rest of my life. But the price Anon...the modern prices are the problem.

>>15307163
I always wanted a Cosmonaute myself...it's the only 24hour dial watch that I think looks perfect. But only in the 1960s iteration...the modern ones have subdials that are too large, and according to the boutique I stopped in a year ago, they'd stopped making the model entirely. Shame.

>>15307349
Ugly. Like black diamonds; intended to be bought by males seeking masculine jewelry when in reality the blackness hides flaws in the finishing or uniformity of materials.

>>15307403
One day. Still the most perfect mechanical chronograph in the world in terms of balance of aesthetics + function.

>>15307441
Leather straps are fine if you're in an office. If you do anything remotely athletic or if you sweat, then it's hopeless. Even good leather straps (i.e. Hirsch et al) still suffer. I transfer my Omega to a sharkskin for a few months of the year, but even then it's getting fewer and fewer as time goes by, and the old Panerai straps disintegrated pretty damn quickly (but I think it's because of the ph level of my sweat and not the inherent quality of the leather).

>>15307453
Yeah, but it's advertising; no one takes this kind of stuff seriously unless they know nothing about watches but have too much money to burn.

>>15307487
No, and no modern speedies have either. We love the Speedy for the look, the association or connection with history, and the wearability. Few 3-register chronographs have the aesthetic balance, the reliability under extreme duress, and the immediate recognizably that the Speedy has.


>here we go...

>>15090667
So am I Anon, so am I.

>>15090938
Speedy cal. 321 from '67 or '68. Available, varying conditions, but not impossible.
>pic related

>>15090941
I've only created 2 other threads in the past few years, and they both had flaws (i.e. missing references, errors in the text, etc.). This one was smooth as the winding of a recently serviced diving watch.

>>15091217
It really does look like the kind of watch an Italian drug lord would wear....lol Fun stuff.

>>14508714
I disagree friend; at the moment I'm saving up for a Speedy 145.012; To me that's the best iteration of the traditional Speedy to exist. But again, in time.

>>14508716
You'd be surprised Anon. Try one on in person...you may like them. Granted, modern prices are ridiculous if you buy new, and I can't argue about that. But for a watch that is decades old, there's a certain charm to them.

Serious question. I've always wanted an Omega Speedmaster Pro. Originally I thought I'd buy one new, and it would be 'my' watch. Then as I researched a bit, I decided after a while that I wanted a Cal. 321 from 68/69, so I'd have 'the real thing'.

Lately though, I've been leaning back to a modern, thoroughly new model. A few things bother me.

1) I already have a column wheel chronograph, so I don't care about the column wheel 321.
2) While I like the 5 ticks per second charm of the 321, I don't care that the cal. 1861 is 6 ticks.
3) If I were to buy a 321 and send it to Omega to service (since Omega no longer sells parts to Indepedent watchmakers), it would come back looking like a new one anyway, aside from (hopefully) the applied Omega symbol on the face). But I've seen horror stories about serviced vintage Omegas where they use the wrong hands to replace etc. So why would I deal with the extra hassle and cost?

Basically, here's the problem. The cost isn't the issue really...it's just that I no longer feel the 'existential' value of having a Cal. 321 Speedy instead of the modern 1861 (which was also flight certified by NASA).

I'd still get a Hesalite though...I don't like the way that the sapphire sandwich looks.

Thoughts? Am I crazy to reconsider a cal. 321?

>>14179492
They announced it a few months ago. https://www.swatchgroup.com/en/services/archive/2019/omega-reintroduces-iconic-calibre-321

It'll obviously be a cash grab...and honestly, I'm still going to go with a real one.

>>13675262
I did this last night, but I'll be brief here. Similar aesthetics, similar size, similar materials, and it's a NASA certified movement in its current form and can be seen on EVAs currently. Specifically regarding the moon though, as far as we know only cal. 321s were worn on the moon, and the modern pros use the 861/1861. But considering that the current 861/1861 is certified for EVAs, it's not that big of a deal unless you're a stickler for the original hardware (like I am). If NASA goes back to the moon, it's likely a modern 861 will be there, so I don't see the point in getting one's panties in a kruller. Does that clarify the point? Man...that question gets asked a lot...

>>13663981
Oh my...well, there we are then.

It's a funny thing about the 145.012. Initially I was convinced that I'd want to get a brand new Speedy, but after handling a few cal. 321s I came to the conclusion that I really wanted the 5 gradations of a second much more than the 6. I don't know why...it 'sounds' better to me. But more than that, I simply want the technology that went to the moon, as irrational as that is. Also, I didn't want it to be a case where I bought a new one and then simply lusted after 'what I really wanted'...I've had buyer's remorse too often in life...now I just wait until I get precisely what I want, even if it takes a few years.

Hope everyone is doing well and in good health...I've been reminded quite often recently of how quickly health can deteriorate...or how friends and relatives can be gone in a week. Take care everyone.