The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998.
Informational Websites ChronoMaddox -- the legacy of Chuck Maddox OnTheDash -- vintage Heuer website Zowie -- Omega information
Discussion Forums ChronoMaddox Forum Heuer Forum Omega Forum
Counterfeit Watchers ChronoTools Forum ChronoTrader Forum
Vintage Heuer Discussion Forum
The place for discussing 1930-1985 Heuer wristwatches, chronographs and dash-mounted timepieces. Online since May 2003.
OnTheDash Home What's New! Price Guide Chronographs Dash Mounted Collection
A Challenge for You, Chuck (or a Fovor of You??) *LINK*

Is there any (easy) way that this could be edited a bit so that I could post as a "freestanding" piece on our Movements page (linked below). Or maybe a freestanding page, that we could link from the Movements page?? It may not be a perfect fit, but we need some way to preserve and be able to easily reference this sort of incredible information.

Thoughts?? Easier approaches??



: The Lemania 1873 is generally
: considered to be a better movement than the
: Valjoux 72 the original Carrera sported, and
: the Re-Editions were and are well thought
: of.

: hi chuck Hiya Bruce, Good to see you
: posting!

: are you sure about the 72/1873 relationship
: as i understood the 1873 is of nowhere near
: the quality of the 321 (found in pre 1969
: speedmasters etc) given that the 321 and 72
: were direct compeditors is there really that
: much difference in quality? Well, it's
: not really simple... and I can't really
: explain it in a sentence or two...

: Both the Valjoux 71/72 Series and the Lemania
: 27 CHRO C12/c.321 movements are venerable
: movements, and competitors for many years.
: For the most part, the 27 CHRO C12 (which is
: the early name for the c.321) was a
: co-development between Lemania and Omega and
: was use nearly exclusively by Omega. I'm
: suffering from a nasty head/sinus/chest cold
: at the moment, so I'm not at my best, but I
: can't for the life of me think of a brand
: that used the "C12" or the c.321
: besides Omega and the occasional Lemania
: branded chronograph. On the other hand
: nearly every brand save Omega (and Lemania),
: Breitling, and possibly Tissot used the
: Valjoux 71/72 family of calibres including
: Rolex. Thus the v.72 series and the
: C12/c.321 were natural competitors.

: By the mid-1960's, It became apparent to
: Lemania that it needed to come up with a
: chronograph that was easier to mass produce
: in order to meet the growing demand that
: Omega (and other manufacturers) were making
: with orders for their chronograph movements.
: Their first attempt was a movement which was
: an interesting blend of the earlier
: C12/c.321 movement and the later 1873... It
: retained the earlier calibre's distinctive
: "Arched Bridge" while swapping the
: Column wheel for a Lever Cam arrangement,
: and a screwed balance for a smooth balance.
: Lemania made examples useing this movement
: for several years, as did Tissot. I happen
: to own one of the Tissot's (a Seastar) and
: it's a nice little watch. But the Lever Cam
: and Smooth Balance were clearly cheaper and
: easier to make than the older and more
: complex Column Wheel and screwed balance.

: So, Lemania keep working at it and rolled out
: the c.87x series in or around 1968. I speak
: more specifically about the differences
: between these two series in this article:
: Speedmaster "Moonwatch"
: Movements: Background Information

: Ok, So Lemania introduced the new c.87x
: movements in or around 1968. The main
: differences were the aforementioned switch
: from Column Wheel to Shuttle/Cam, the
: Balance Wheel went from Screwed to smooth,
: the balance wheel change allowed an increase
: in beat frequency from 18,000 to 21,600, the
: change in shape of the bridge, and a flat
: balance spring was utilized.

: Now, while 99 out of 100 chronograph collectors
: will tell you that they prefer the Column
: Wheel and the looks of an arched bridge, in
: terms of function there is little if any
: difference in actual day to day usage. But
: the c.87x movements are significantly
: simpler to manufacture and can be produced
: at a higher volume at a lower cost. However,
: the fact that a c.87x movement is
: significantly less expensive to manufacture
: doesn't equate to it being a lower cost
: movement any more than a lower cost
: Macintosh iMac G4 ($1,599 - 2003 Dollars) is
: a lower quality unit than the original
: Macintosh 128k (which listed for $2,500 in
: 1984).

: One of the big advantages that the Valjoux 7x
: series enjoyed was the sheer number of
: variations it was available in... In
: addition to the tried and true v.72, I own a
: v.721 (Seafarer), v.723 (triple-date),
: several c.724's (GMT Complication), c.726
: (Improved c.72), and a c.728 (single
: register with a center pinion chronograph
: minute counter (similar to the Lemania 5100
: and 1341/2)... The C12/c.321 was never
: offered in anything other than base
: three-register chronograph model. The c.87x
: series had a number of complicated versions,
: including the c.863 (highly decorated
: display back version), c.864 (Chronometer),
: c.866 (Moonphase - Date), c.867
: (skeletonized), in addition there were c.910
: (GMT Hand/ AM/PM at 9 o'clock Sub-dial),
: c.911 (GMT - Small Second at 9 o'clock), and
: the c.930 (which was a two register, date)
: which were used in the Flightmasters (910,
: 911), and DeVille/Bullhead (930) Omega
: Chronographs all based on the same basic
: movement. These are all Omega Calibre
: numbers as I'm not entirely certain of the
: Lemania nomenclature for all of the Omega
: Variants. But suffice it to say the c.87x
: was available in many more flavors than the
: older C12/c.321 movement.

: Which brings me back to the Valjoux 72...

: The Valjoux 72 is a good solid movement,
: venerable, and well thought of. However in
: the most torturous (NASA) testing the c.321
: topped the v.72 (and later on the Omega
: c.861 did as well) consistantly and reliably
: . Now some will say that it's really hard to
: blame the failures that led NASA to
: disqualify the v.72 powered chronographs at
: the feet of the v.72 (the failures were more
: along the lines of popped crystals and
: warped hands), but the Speedmaster held up
: better, both in the 1960's tests (when
: utilizing the c.321) and in the tests in the
: late 1970's (utilizing the later Omega c.861
: (Lemania 873)). Since the Valjoux 72
: remained in widespread production through
: the early 1970's there was some overlap when
: one could buy a c.87x Lemania or a v.72. I'm
: not sure exactly when Valjoux discontinued
: the v.72, but Rolex used them in the Daytona
: before switching to the Zenith El-Primero
: movement, when that movement was revived
: from near extinction in the 1980's. It's my
: experience that most people who have
: experience with both the Lemania's (c.321 or
: c.87x) and the Valjoux 72 will typically
: voice a preference for the Lemania movement.

: I own a lot of each of these movements:
: c.321/c.87x/v.72/v.72x and while they each
: seem to perform well, the Lemania seem to be
: sturdier. The Valjoux has a number of very
: long and delicate levers that the Lemania
: either doesn't have or are shorter or much
: thicker, which contribute to the Lemania's
: reputation for robust movements that can
: take punishment well. The finish also seems
: to be better typically on the Lemania's when
: compared to the Valjoux counterparts.

: And to finish back at your question... which
: was "... as i understood the 1873
: is of nowhere near the quality of the 321
: "... The c.87x is not as costly or as
: involved to produce as the c.321. But it's
: not possible to make a 1:1 correlation
: between cost and quality. The c.861 (for
: example) passed the same NASA tests as the
: c.321 and did as well or better than the
: earlier movement. Most collectors prefer the
: rarer, less common, more estetically
: pleasing and "original moonwatch"
: c.321 movement over the c.861, but quality
: isn't really the reason.

: A side note... I refer to the movement you
: called the 1873 as c.87x because there are
: enough variations of this movement, and I'm
: not as conversant with Lemania's naming
: conventions as I am Omega's. I know that
: Lemania makes c.1871, 1872, 1873 and 1874
: movements all based on the same basic
: design. Lemania calls the originally Gilt
: Plated versions without the initial 1 in the
: movement number, and added the one for
: Rhodium plated examples. For what it's
: worth, the c.321 never went out of
: production and is currently available (and
: used by certain high end watch companies)
: and is known as the Lemania c.2310 and
: c.2320.

: I'm sorry if this reply is rambling or hard to
: follow. I hope it clarifies rather than
: clouds. But with the way I'm feelin' I could
: see it go either way... =) If you have
: follow-up's please post them, I'll try to
: clarify further.

: bruce Cheers!

: -- Chuck


: Chuck Maddox


: ( Article index @
: )



Current Position
Chronocentric and zOwie site design and contents (c) Copyright 1998-2005, Derek Ziglar; Copyright 2005-2008, Jeffrey M. Stein. All rights reserved. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the terms of use. CONTACT | TERMS OF USE | TRANSLATE