zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Re: Fortunately, rugged daily users are great valu Posted By: allen st. john

Date: 3/24/07 11:48 GMT

In Response To: Fortunately, rugged daily users are great values (Chicagoland Chuck Maddox)

: Speedmaster Pro Bang for Buck: 321 or 861?

: But which one? Preferably the one which

: best suits your particular needs.

: I like the idea of the 321, pre Pro or pre

: Moon..

: But an 861 is all but identical in outward

: appearance. All but... Yeah, but the

: devil's in the details, isn't it?

I agree. To a point. The Mark ii may be, in many ways, a better watch than a Speedy Moon Watch. But it's not nearly as pretty, and if I'm going to spend money on a watch, it's got to be prettier than my $57 Timex.

A Mark II is prettier than your $57 Timex. Trust me.

It's styling is more modern/contempory, less "classic", granted, but it's not ugly.

So I'm willing to spend a few hundred more for a Moon Watch.

Ok, that wasn't in your original thoughts, thought I would explore it. Among the reasons to consider a Mark II in addition to the moonwatch is the sturdier crystal (which fits nearly flush with the case, the under crystal tachy bezel (which won't get dinged or scratched as easily, better water resistance and the hidden lug case.

If none of those advantages are relevent, then the Mark II can be dismissed.

But as for spending perhaps twice as much to get an applied Omega symbol and a dial without the word professional, and a different caseback, perhaps that's best left to the collectors.

That's a value judgement, since the funds for any potential transaction are coming from your wallet/bank account/credit card... You get to make the value judgement.

My advice: do the leg (or finger) work and investigate all possibilities before pulling out your means of payment from your pocket.

At a certain level, the less the watch costs, the more I'm likely to wear it.

Which is why I mention the Mark II and the 176.0012.

: Is there a compelling reason to pay

: extra--both in cash and non-cash costs for a

: 321? Less common, more historical

: interest, more appealing looking movement,

: greater resale value, Knowning that you're

: wearing the same watch and movement worn by

: the NASA Astronauts on the moon.

As I said, I like the idea, and if I had unlimited resources, I'd have half a dozen 321s.

You asked a question... I answered it, or at least provided one semblence of an answer to said question.

But I don't.

I only own 3 c.321's...

and while I wouldn't mind owning a 105.002 and a 105.012 I really don't need either.

Essetinally, I can probably have a 321 or a 861 and a Heuer Camaro or something.

Or a Heuer Carrera, an Omega Seamaster c.321...

Or perhaps a nice UG of some stripe...

Or perhaps a nice Heuer Autavia...

There are lot's of options...

I did really like your Memphis Raines analogy in your blog.

I do too!

I agree completely about taste versus money.

As I used to say in the 1980's: anyone with a fat wallet can buy a Mustang GT or a Z-28 and drive fast. It takes talent to show them up with a lesser vehicle.

Unfortunately, I've generally got more taste than money (although I'm very happy that my horological tastes run to Omegas and Heuers and not Pateks.)

I am happiest among Omega's, Heuer's, Gallet's, and that ilk....

: Among 861s are there substantive differences

: among watches of different vintages--is a

: 1970 SP better (or worse) than an '85 or a

: 1999? Well, the movement plating have

: switched from Gilt (Coppery Golden color) to

: Yellow Gold to Rhodium (silver) during that

: timeframe.

When?

--> Yellow Gold... At some point in the 1988-1992 epoch (I'm not sure),

--> Rhodium... In the 1995-1997 timeframe.

: Omega's switched from a steel

: brake to a Delrin brake in the mid-1970's

: (and has switched back in more recent years.

Is this more of an aesthetic issue or a functional one?

Yes...

Omega switched to the Delrin part because it was a better material for that particular parts' function.

Omega switched back to the metal part because it's more appealing aestheticly.

: Bottom line: if you were buying a

: used/vintage Speedmaster Pro to wear (most

: likely on a strap rather than a bracelet)

: how would you narrow your search?

I'm more of a sit at my desk type, and I've got cheap quartzes to wear for playing baseball with the kids and what have you.

I used to lose watches, but not anymore, and only abuse them minimally.

Then don't feel you should exclude the moonwatch based on how you're going to use it. If money is a factor, then it is a factor.

: In fact, I did a write up on "The topic is

: rugged chronographs made by Omega" a

: couple of years back in the TZOF and I

: re-cycled those posts in my blog about 10

: months ago... The topic is rugged

: chronographs made by Omega...

Saw it. Nice job. But the Mark 11 just isn't pretty enough

If it's not to your tastes, then it's not to your tastes. Not a problem.

(it also looks a lot like one of my poor man's Heuer's which looks great on a slightly oversized Hirsch Carbon. The band cost more than the watch.

: The next

: most economical model is probably a

: mid-1970's era Speedmaster Moonwatch, and if

: you wanted to stick with a moonwatch, that's

: the direction I'd probably point you

: considering I don't know any more about your

: needs and wants.

That's what I'm looking for. Basically the cheapest (clean, legit) Speedy Pro that I can find, all things being equal.

That's what I would concentrate my searches upon, but I wouldn't turn my nose up at a more recent Speedmaster at the right price. I paid $860 or so for my early pattern c.863 display-back Speedy pro about three years back.

: What's going to offer the best value overall,

: taking into account reliability, future

: value, and service costs, the whole magilla?

: The c.861 is going to have the easiest

: parts availablity and lowest cost to

: maintain in my opinion. If you're wanting to

: maximize future value then you're going to

: want to go with a more exotic variant.

I'm figuring that if I buy the right used watch, I can get what I paid for it without much problem.

Good figuring.

As for maximizing future value, you only realize that when you sell it. I'm thinking I'll probably pass this on to my son...or just break it way before hand.

It's just to maximize future value, you have to consider that on the front end. I would assume that unless used watch values colapse, you'll likely be able to get your money out of it as long as it's taken proper care of.

: thanks in advance and pardon me if this one's

: been covered a million times--I'm a newbie.

: You're asking it in an interesting way.

: That helps!

That is what I do. Don't know if you saw my "introduction" on the Heuer Forum,

I can't say I remember it so I will probably have to circle back around to read it. (In other words, I probably didn't)

but I write a sports column for the Wall Street Journal, and write books and magazine stories. If I play my cards right, I can call this research.

There you go!

But seriously, Chuck, thanks for the clear, thorough, and well-written response.

Among the goals are: Educate, Inform, illuminate, provolk additional thought, entertain and hopefully maybe insert a little humor along the way. If I am able to do most of those things, good, I seek to do them all.

Speaking of Sports columns, here's one of my all time favorites, which I liked so much I grabbed a copy and keep a copy on my site.

Your enthusiasm for the topic is infectious.

Watch collecting has been likened to a disease. Why shouldn't my responses be infectious?

: Allen

: Cheers and Good Hunting!

: -- Chuck

There is that echo again:

Cheers and Good Hunting!

-- Chuck

Chuck Maddox

Chronographs, like most finer things in life, only improve with time...

Watch Article index: http://www.xnet.com/~cmaddox/cm3articles.html,

Watch Links Page: http://www.xnet.com/~cmaddox/watch.html,

Watch Blog: http://chuckmaddoxwatch.blogspot.com/.