A Week On The Wrist The Omega Speedmaster 321, 39.7mm In Steel
The absolute first Captain America movie is notable for various reasons (remembering an exceptionally smart example of a variation for the Gordian Knot puzzle, including a mysterious training camp, a flagpole, and a ride back to base with Agent Carter), however quite possibly the most memorable minutes is, obviously, the awakening of the eponymous Captain after being surrendered for dead in 1945, in the present – where he proceeds to become the cornerstone in the arch of the organization known as the Avengers. As far as I might be concerned, the Captain’s disappearance and revival echoes the historical backdrop of that singular mechanical chronograph development known as the caliber 321.
Born during an age of wonder, during the 1950s, it blazed a trail of greatness across the landmasses, yet in addition across the skies as the motor inside the never-to-be-failed to remember Speedmaster Professional, better known (as each watch geek learns at about the same time they’re potty trained) as the Moonwatch, by which name it is known to the faithful. Like Captain America, the caliber 321 tumbled from the statures into the apparently unrecoverable profundities of history – and like the Avenger, it has risen, suddenly, to attempt to become another legend in another, unique, and challenging world.
Left, the current creation Moonwatch; right, the Caliber 321.
The Evolution Of The Moonwatch Movement
Since the whole raison d’être of the steel 321 Speedmaster is to house the reawakened caliber 321, I think the historical backdrop of the development and how it’s advanced will probably be of great interest to anyone considering paying admirably above the expense of a standard Moonwatch for one outfitted with the 321 movement.
The entire inquiry of putting the caliber 321 back into creation appeared to be definitively shut, for a long time. Omega quit making it in 1969, and in the Speedmaster, it was replaced by the caliber 861, and then the 1861. There are various contrasts between the caliber 321 and its replacements. The 321 is a lateral grasp, section wheel controlled chronograph, running at 18,000 vph, with a Breguet overcoil balance spring. It’s based on the Lemania/Omega 2310, created during the 1940s as the 27 CHRO C12.
27 CHRO C12 (image, Omega archives).
The major contrast between 27 CHRO C12 and the caliber 321 is the development wrapping up. The 321 has a galvanically applied coating which has been variously alluded to as gold, rose-gold, and copper, contingent upon which source you counsel – incidentally, the coating (which was also utilized by Omega on many different developments) is almost unadulterated copper. This was affirmed to me by Omega and, curiously, the subject of the composition of the plating is one that has been kicking around the watch internet for over 20 years. In 2001, Timezone’s Rob Berkavicius chosen to settle the matter scientifically and submitted components from several Omega developments to a free metallurgist for testing. The outcomes are as yet on the web – I was very amazed to read the lab report as I had always assumed that it couldn’t be copper given the ease with which I’d assumed copper consumes. In any case, incidentally, copper builds up a surface layer of oxidation which acts as a defensive shield, forestalling further oxidation (the interaction is called passivation; the same wonder happens with both titanium and aluminum). I probably ought to have thought a little harder about the fact that copper is a great material for plumbing as well – not such a place to utilize a metal apt to readily corrode.
Original caliber 321 (image, Omega archives). The development is in brilliant condition, without a doubt, slight oxidation to the copper plating can be seen. The gray-green German silver rooster for the chronograph coupling wheel is noticeable at 11:00.
The 27 CHRO 12 and the 321 appear to be identical right away, in the event that not in completion, at least in the basic components and their arrangement, however they are, in fact, not completely identical. One fascinating obvious contrast can be seen at about the 4:00 situation in the two calibers, where the jumper spring holding the chronograph minute recorder is located. In the 27 CHRO 12, this is a relatively straightforward straight blade spring, while in the 321, there is a more complex, multipart jumper switch, with the spring mounted as a separate component. I don’t know about this, but rather it looks as if the arrangement in the 321 would allow the watchmaker to adjust the power of engagement of the jumper with the wheel – it has to be sufficiently able to hold the moment recorder wheel solidly in place, however not all that solid as to cause balance amplitude to drop significantly when the wheel is filed. The chicken holding the chronograph coupling wheel, at 11:00, is shaped contrastingly in the two developments as well – in the 321, this component is made of German silver; I don’t know what Lemania utilized for 27 CHRO 12, however it certainly seems as though German silver. (The shape of the cockerel found in the 27 CHRO 12 can also be found in certain variants of the 321, apparently – even inside a solitary caliber, there are variations underway throughout the long term.) The rotate for the grip wheel is by all accounts a straightforward penetrated opening in 27 CHRO 12, while the wheel runs in a bushing in the 321. Why German silver? No one really knows. (Nickel alloys will in general have great dimensional stability over a fairly wide temperature range; that may have something to do with it).
Caliber 861, which began to replace the 321 in 1969.
The 861, then again, utilizes a bus and-cam exchanging framework, a flat balance spring, and runs at a marginally higher recurrence, at 21,600 vph. While various aspects of the 321 were retained for the 861, the distinctions are immediately self-evident. The cam for work exchanging is at 12:00, replacing the elegant, however more complex and costly, section wheel, and the reset hammer, to one side, is shaped distinctively as well. The Breguet overcoil of the 321, and the adjustable mass balance, have offered way to a flat balance spring and strong rimmed balance, and the contact fit regulator of the 321 has also been replaced, with a micrometer-screw adjustable regulator. Although the shape of the chicken for the coupling wheel is distinctive as well, it looks from the image gave as if Omega was all the while utilizing German silver at this point. The most evident noticeable change, aside from the switch over to a bus and-cam framework, is the scaffold for the chronograph seconds and moment recorder wheels. The basic idea behind the 861 appears to have been to take the 321 and make it more affordable to deliver, and less labor-serious to set up.
Caliber 1861, with rhodium plating (the adaptation utilized in display-back models has a metal rather than Delrin brake for the chronograph seconds wheel).
The 1861 is basically a rhodium-plated rendition of the 861. Another contrast between the two is that the 861 uses a metal brake for the chronograph seconds hand, while the 1861 uses a brake made of Delrin, a plastic. I have heard perfectionists object occasionally, throughout the long term, to the utilization of plastic in the development, yet absolutely from a technical viewpoint, it’s probably better than the metal part it replaces. DuPont, which makes Delrin, has this to say about it: “Delrin acetal homopolymer (Polyoxymethylene POM) is the ideal material in parts intended to replace metal. It combines low-erosion and high-wear resistance with the high strength and firmness such applications require. It gives a wide operating temperature range (- 40 °C to 120 °C) and great colorability. Delrin also mates well with metals and different polymers and offers phenomenal dimensional stability in high accuracy shaping.” With the 1861, Omega also appears to have replaced the German silver cockerel for the chronograph coupling wheel with one made of one or the other steel or rhodium-plated brass (I assume the latter). Oh, and that coupling wheel – its bushing days are finished; in the 1861, it finally gets its own gem, increasing the check to 18 from the 17 gems found in the 321 and 861.
Now, this is all via saying that the 861/1861 is not something to be ashamed of, and it has as honorable a background marked by administration in manned space trip as the 321. In fact, caliber 1861 Speedmasters have served on Apollo/Soyuz (I accept they have, although I am not completely sure the given watches for that mission were not 321 models from NASA stock) as well as STS (Space Transportation System; the Space Shuttle) missions, and are being used today onboard the ISS.
The Lemania 2310/2320 Calibers
One final however important point is how much the caliber 321 and the adaptation of the 27 CHRO 12 utilized by brands like Breguet, Patek, and Vacheron are similar or identical. The comparison is a fascinating one. There were two basic variations on 27 CHRO 12 – the Lemania 2310, with 17 gems, and the 2320, with 21 gems. The 2310 was utilized by Patek (for example) as the base for its chronograph caliber CH 27-70 and the 2320 by Breguet for its chronograph caliber 533.2/3 (and by Vacheron as the caliber 1141, to give only one other example). The inquiry has been raised in certain quarters, at that point, as to whether the 321 really should have been remanufactured in any case, as developments got from 27 CHRO 12 are, after all, still in production.
Breguet 533.3, based on the Lemania 2320. Image, The Naked Watchmaker.
Let’s gander at one example. The Breguet 533.3 (got from the 2320) shares many similarities, obviously, with the 321. Notwithstanding, there are major contrasts as well. Immediately noticeable contrasts incorporate the balance, regulator framework, jumper for the chronograph minutes wheel, arrangement of the chronograph coupling switch, the shape of the driving wheel, gem tally, recurrence, balance spring, balance spring stud, the actual balance, the chronograph driving haggle wheels, and so on. (For an extremely detailed gander at this development, look at the tear-down at The Naked Watchmaker ). According to Omega, the 2310/2320 have about half parts in common with the 321 – a portion of those are probably going to be such critical components as the keyless works, going train, mainspring and barrel, and any number of screws and gems. Nonetheless, recreating the 321 was clearly not simply an issue of taking a 2320 or 2310 and applying an alternate finish. Short of getting a caliber 321 and a Lemania 2310/20 on loan, breaking them down myself, and doing a part-to-part comparison (gracious stay composed, my beating heart), I’m probably not going to have the option to make a conclusive analysis, however I think the basic point remains.
Patek Philippe caliber CH 27-70, based on the Lemania 2310.
There are, in fact, major contrasts between each variation of the base calibers 2310/20, as well as between those calibers, the 321, the original 27 CHRO 12, and the calibers 861 and 1861. The distinctions are fascinating to analyze. As far as I might be concerned, what is similarly as remarkable is that all those developments, on the whole their variations, are related to each other. It’s a really unfathomable saga of diligence and the advancement of all the variants from the original caliber, as well as the perseverance of certain key features (you could do a lovely profound plunge simply on the improvement of various variations on the reset-to-zero framework); it is a story which has played out over many decades, in probably the most beautiful, intriguing, and meaningful wristwatches of all time.
Left, caliber 321 in the platinum Speedmaster 321 ; right, Lemania 2310/Vacheron 1142, in the Vacheron Constantin Cornes de Vache LE for HODINKEE .
The Modern Caliber 321
We’ve recently examined the constancy of the cutting edge 321 to the original, and the answer currently is essentially the same as when we initially experienced it, in the metal, in the platinum 321 – it is, in each regard, the same development, directly down to the typeface for the engravings. All things considered, almost the same. At the outset, second, and even third glance, it is easy to mistake the original for one of the new developments, although next to each other there is an obvious contrast in the completion. While Omega utilized unadulterated copper for the original, the new 321 has a completion of PVD (not electroplated) Sedna gold, which offers better resistance to erosion, as well as giving the new 321 a marginally more profound red coloration. The German silver chicken for the chronograph coupling wheel is available and right, as are the 18,000 vph beat rate, freesprung balance with Breguet overcoil, section wheel control framework, lateral grip, and so on. I don’t think I’ve at any point seen any watch brand do anything like this previously – the 321 was one of the last great mass-delivered hand-wound chronograph developments of the pre-Quartz Crisis era, before the automatic chronograph – especially the 7750 and variants – made the category an endangered species.
The present day caliber 321.
The new developments are, according to Omega, each assembled and adjusted by a solitary watchmaker, and the company says that they hope to do about a thousand a year at the beginning, which is a remarkably low number. The 321 is a development which requires more hand-adjustment by the assembling watchmaker than the 861 and 1861, which adds to the rarity and relatively significant expense of the watches containing it. Adjustments incorporate fine adjustment of the striking faces of the reset-to-zero hammers, fine regulation of the balance and spring, profundity of the chronograph coupling wheel’s engagement with the chronograph seconds wheel, and of the chronograph minute-wheel jumper with the actual wheel, and so on. These manual adjustments were, if not exactly par for the course, a standard part of the talented watchmaker’s collection during the 1950s and ’60s, however the business endeavored as much as conceivable to diminish the amount of hand-work necessary to assemble and adjust developments, both as a matter of reducing creation expenses and increasing reliability.
The caliber 321 addressed in its plan and execution an approach to development manufacturing which is both virtually obscure today and massively appealing to vintage enthusiasts. All things considered, I would have wagered real cash on it being away for acceptable. I asked (years ago, at a press breakfast) at that point CEO Stephen Urquhart whether the 321 may at any point be brought back, and he precluded it categorically, refering to both cost and general impracticality. I was hence incredibly shocked and exceptionally pleased when Omega announced it would start manufacturing again , last year.
The Caliber 321 In Steel
As you can probably imagine, after admiring Speedmasters on and off since about 1968 up until the present, and after yearning miserably for Omega to start re-manufacturing the 321 for a fairly significant lump of that time, I opened the case containing our sample with a certain degree of feeling.
The Caliber 321 Speedmaster.
The initial introduction I had of the watch was overwhelmingly good, and in fact, I felt very transported back as expected (other than telling the time and measuring elapsed time, generating nostalgia is probably the main capacity of the new 321 in steel). To handle one of these watches is a very odd inclination. There is a famous apparition tale about Marie Antoinette’s private home at Versailles, a place called the Petit Trianon (which I notice advisedly; the Swatch Group, and Nicolas G. Hayek Senior, supported an incredibly costly renovation of the Trianon), known as the Moberly-Jourdain episode , during a few British sightseers claimed to have gotten themselves, while visiting the grounds, suddenly transported backwards as expected and treated to scenes from a hundred years and more preceding their visit. I had the same feeling of being abruptly, unpretentiously, and certainly unstuck as expected, as Kurt Vonnegut once put it – and that’s prior to taking a gander at the development; the actual watch, with its straight carries, lack of crown guards, and vintage-style bracelet, appeared to have either fallen through a stable wormhole from the 1960s or got me back through one.
Side by side with an advanced, standard-issue Moonwatch, the 321 Steel almost feels more a Moonwatch than the actual Moonwatch.
I waited many years, from my first fascination with manned space flight, with Apollo, and then Apollo Soyuz, and then the disastrous investigation (albeit with many victories) that was STS, or the Space Transport System, otherwise called the Space Shuttle. Altogether that time, I had a relationship with the Speedmaster that was nearer, certainly, to how I feel about the G-Shock than how I felt about the Lemania 2310/20 and variants – to me, the Speedmaster was an oddball that had by one way or another managed against all chances not exclusively to endure, however succeed. The X-33 certainly had its own fascination – it is, after all, the Mars Watch, and far more qualified to obligation on a flight deck, especially for long-duration missions, than the Speedmaster. Indeed, even the Speedmaster Mark II was planned as an improvement, from a practical standpoint, over the Moonwatch, and so on down the line it went.
Still, the basic Speedmaster has flown; the majority of its replacements have not, and thanks to the delicacy of LCDs concerning temperature, the X-33 won’t ever wind up in the hard vacuum of interplanetary space, until there is a quantum leap in display innovation. There is something very brilliant about the constancy of mechanical horology in so bleeding edge a climate as space flight. It shouldn’t be there at all – gears and mainsprings; it’s silly, however yet, there it is.
In terms of makeup, you were unable to ask for anything more enjoyable, except if obviously what you really wanted was another old stock Speedmaster from the 1960s, however you’re probably not going to get one of those. Instead, you instantly feel as on the off chance that you are getting a half and half. Cross breed isn’t usually an attractive word or a compelling idea, however in this case, it means that you are getting a considerable amount of what we as a whole love about a vintage Speedmaster, with none of the downside.
I should be clear about this by and by; there isn’t anything incorrectly whatsoever with the calibers 1861 and 861. They may well have served on more manned space missions than the 321, as a matter of fact, and they are as durable and hard-wearing as anyone could ask, to say nothing of the fact that when you have a 1861 or 861-prepared Speedmaster, you have a watch for two or three thousand bucks which is a kissing cousin to probably the most costly and beautiful chronograph wristwatches on the planet. Be that as it may, you know, the Patek 27-70 CHRO and the Vacheron 1141 never went to space; the 861/1861 did.
The new caliber 321 in the platinum Speedmaster.
All this and more about the set of experiences matters, because when you put on the 321 Speedmaster in steel, and when you use it, you’re not simply interacting with a watch and a development – you’re sharing straightforwardly an encounter which it has not been conceivable to have in another watch since the last creation Speedmaster with the 321 was sold. The Speedmaster 321 isn’t only a restorative reboot, similar to the vast majority of vintage-enlivened wristwatches out there; it is instead a through and through, back to front recreation of an extremely particular and vital crossroads throughout the entire existence of wristwatches in general, and of the chronograph wristwatch in particular.
Now, we’ve taken a long glance at the historical backdrop of the 27 CHRO 12, the caliber 321, and the Lemania calibers which are related to it, and we’ve had the option to see the development over the long haul of the various mechanisms, technical arrangements, plan changes, and completes – these developments run the gamut from solid, high-grade, straightforward exactness chronometric devices, to horological masterpieces. Obviously, the plan of the 321 Speedmaster in steel is gotten from the same time frame in Omega’s set of experiences that gave us the 321. The watch is based, plan savvy, on the ref. 105.003, and incorporates straight hauls, the spot more than 90 bezel, and a ventured dial; as well, there are no guards looking into the issue for the crown and chronograph pushers. The bracelet is an updated adaptation of the flat-connect bracelets that appeared on the original 105.003 (the 7912 and 1035), yet it’s a considerable amount more strong in feel. It’s also incredibly comfortable – steel bracelets on games watches can frequently feel somewhat bulky, however this one manages to feel smoothly adaptable in the hand and on the wrist, without quitting any pretense of anything in reassuring, substantial form quality. It also happens to look cool and complements the 321 case beautifully.
One of the greatest concerns I had, after seeing the original public statement, however prior to seeing the watch in the metal, was the lume – I contemplated whether it mightn’t appear to be a tad an excessive amount of ersatz nostalgia and ruin the whole impact. Happily, it didn’t. In the metal, the color is incredibly inconspicuous – it’s less a beige but rather more it is a pleasant grayish eggshell, and I think on the off chance that you didn’t have any acquaintance with it was there, you may easily miss it at first.
There two or three technical enhancements over a vintage Speedmaster as well. The bezel is currently ceramic (zirconium oxide), which is essentially scratchproof, not at all like the aluminum embed utilized on the Moonwatch, and Omega has decided on sapphire crystals, front and back (and, obviously, the lume is presently Super-LumiNova, not tritium). The display back and sapphire crystal made me fret a piece as well – my initial idea was, indeed, in for a dime, in for a dollar, why not Hesalite and a strong caseback (or if nothing else, why not both as a choice)? As much as I might want to support my retro-sourpuss credentials by saying that I found the display back problematic, I wound up being incredibly happy it was there, and I don’t figure I would get one of these watches with a strong caseback regardless of whether one was on offer; it’s simply an excessive amount of amusing to take a gander at the development (and I have an inclination anyone who’s a real customer for one of these will want to have the option to do as such as well).
I said when we presented this watch back in January that I don’t think anyone is necessarily cross-shopping this chronograph with any others, and I actually feel that’s actual, with perhaps one caveat – you may potentially end up attempting to settle on this and the standard Moonwatch (ref. 3220.127.116.11.01.006, on a bracelet) which, after all, has the caliber 1861 – that’s a watch and development which have both separated themselves in manned space flight, and which are at present being used in manned space flight today. In any case, at $14,100, it’s more than twice as costly as a standard-issue Moonwatch and along these lines more averse to be an alternative for somebody in the market for the standard Speedmaster Professional 42mm. As far as I might be concerned, the Speedmaster 321 is a very one of a kind value recommendation, and potential proprietors will probably make a go/off limits choice based on the benefits of the watch, rather than on any comparison with another watch.
It has been carefully said that the purchase of a fine mechanical watch is ultimately an emotional, rather than a rational choice – “the heart has its reasons, whereof reason knows nothing.” I feel that’s very evident and especially in this case. The wait, given the low creation numbers for the development and watch, may be a long one, however what you have in the end is a watch which, on the off chance that you are helpless to such a thing, pulls at the heartstrings like not many others. Perhaps it doesn’t damage to be somewhat of a romantic sentimentalist – I uninhibitedly admit to being one myself. I want a steel Speedmaster 321 39.7MM Steel quite badly, yet of course, I cried at the finish of Captain America, too.
The Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch Caliber 321 Steel ref. 318.104.22.168.01.001: case, stainless steel with ceramic bezel, 39.7mm, with 19mm carry width; water resistance, 50 meters; zirconium oxide bezel. Development, Omega caliber 321, hand-wound lateral-grasp section wheel chronograph with overcoil balance, 55-hour power save. U.S. cost, $14,100 regular creation (non-restricted) model.
See it at Omegawatches.com. For a careful indoctrination into the details of vintage Speedmasters, I emphatically recommend Ben Clymer’s classic Reference Points: Understanding The Omega Speedmaster , from 2015.