You are reading a single comment by @bobble and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
bobble
It's a bit complicated… the 861 as an evolution of the 321 (both Lemania movements) was meant to be a bit simpler and more reliable (and cheaper). Omega then made a few more improvements that made the (current Moonwatch's) 1861 probably better than the 321 ever was as a device for actually being used in space, despite the "cruder" cam actuation instead of column wheel.
Omega are also being a bit disingenuous when they say it's been out of production for 50 years - the same Lemania design is still in use, albeit decorated, as the Breguet 533.3 (the Swatch Group own Omega, Lemania and Breguet) and some Pateks.
Basically, a lot of high end mechanical watch movements are really very, very old designs and most of the significant improvements have been to the materials, to make them less affected by magnetism and so on. The 3861 in the solid gold reissue and Apollo 11 special edition are probably the most interesting, adding the coaxial escapement and silicon balance spring (to gain their "master chronometer" certification). That is clearly a "better" calibre than a 321, no question. But it doesn't have a column wheel, so…
Rolex movements are also very simple but they work, to the point where every single watch they sell is rated +/- 2 sec/day. Pretty much no-one else does that. Above that, the difference is mostly in the finishing, decoration and/or use of precious metals.
Ultimately though - the 321 was worn on the moon. The 861/1861 wasn't. The 321 is more desirable to collectors, so Omega are bound to make a big deal out of it.