WATCH TALK FORUMS banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,140 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
..... you had a cal 321 movement and indeed bought some parts from that store in Oz before they sadly shut up shop last year. In fact when you considered your box of tricks and trinkets, you realised that you would have enough gubbins to put together a Speedy Pro and with a cal 321 no less, yes the movement that went to the moon.

Would you do it?

Ok guys - the usual, why, wherefor etc etc ...... you know the drill by now :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:


Be seein' ya pals


ZIN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Funny you should come up with this "supposin", yesterday I ordered an ETA 2824 to build my first watch with. I imagine that it's gonna' take me a few months to actually get it assembled, buying wrong parts, all that trial and error stuff. But, if it actually came together and I had a working watch at the end then I was gonna try and build my own Speedy.
Thanks for the timely question Zin:biggrin: So the answer is YES!!!!:thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Don't know enough to have an opinion but I'm jealous of anyone who has the physical capabilty to do it! Would it be considered an "illegitimate" watch? How much different is the 321 from the 1861/1863?
Mike
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,140 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Well Johnny

I take off my hat to anyone who tinkers with all those wheels and cogs. Massive operation if you ask me but just for fun, why not if you have the parts and indeed, know-how.


Don't know enough to have an opinion but I'm jealous of anyone who has the physical capabilty to do it! Would it be considered an "illegitimate" watch? How much different is the 321 from the 1861/1863?
Mike

Yes Mike it would not be covered by any warranty unless whover built it for you gave you their undertaking. One thing that struck me though is that I believe old movements had the serial number stamped on the movement itself so a way round the system may be possible, speaking hypothetically you understand since the last thing I'd like to be accused of is horological laundering.


The c321 was made more robust with the replacements of certain components. The following jpg may help -


Courtesy of Chuck Maddox


Be seein' ya pals


ZIN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,631 Posts
Sure, I'd give it a go. Providing I knew what I was doing. It would just be a tricky jigsaw puzzle or an intricate model kit, depending on how you look at it.
In fact, I saw a photo tutorial by someone who built a Speedy (unsure with calibre) from all the spare bits he had and it was a stirling job. I'll take a look later and see if I can find the link again. Gotta dash and pick up James from nursery school right now.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,140 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Sorry had to dash off earlier.

There are other differences as well such as the decorative Geneva waves which was not on the c321 but which is present on the 1863. These were not on the 86 1 and 1861 either.



The original brake was metal as it now is on the 1863 but a synthetic material was used in the 861 and 1861 which is believed not only to wear well but lubricate better.




In respect of a "building project", I wonder if it may actually be less costly to source the watch, all-ready assembled with box and papers, BNIB or having been lovingly-tendered.


Y'all have a nice day now


ZIN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,631 Posts
Mike suggested would it be an illegitimate watch. I think that would only apply if the assembled watch looked like a cross between the various guises of Speedmaster. But if all the original parts were used then it's just an Omega Speedmaster that wasn't built in Bienne.
Kind of like a Caterham car. They can be bought in kit form for home assembly, but they are still 100% Caterham.

btw, I'm still trying to find that link.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,140 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
You're right Fergie, it won't be an illegitimate watch, just a kit watch as it were. Its' resale value would be impacted of course.

Actually I saw a few c321s earlier this year which were kit versions.


Be well now pal


ZIN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,631 Posts
If one were to build one, surely it would be for their own personal pleasure, not for re-sale? Or am I just a bit of a romantic?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Love that first pic, stunning!! Maybe putting a watch together is like taking pictures, the first couple of dozen are crap, then you start to get the hang of it. I would hate to put a Speedy together and ruin it. How would I ever forgive myself?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
You dudes are great. Keeps me off of the golf course. Well, not today. See you after 100 strokes of aggravation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,140 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
If I had the parts I'd given them to a trusted watchmaker and wait on the results. Could be quite cool. I'd consider doing it in respect of an out-of-production c321 but a recent or current model would imho be best sourced with box and papers. :001_cool:


Y'all be well now


ZIN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,631 Posts
I'd have to do the same as Zin I'm afraid. As much as I would love to have a go at it, Mrs Fergie wouldn't allow me to do it. She went a bit mardy when I built two Tamiya RC cars.

Don't know how she'll feel when I order a model kit of an SR71 Blackbird
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,140 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Hey Fergie

Just picked up your link - Thanks pal. I thought I had seen it before. Makes you want a c321, doesn't it?

I have to say that aesthetically, I prefer the trapezoid bridge to the arched bridge.


Cheerio 4 now pal


ZIN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,086 Posts
:001_cool:

well, that is pretty much right up my alley, so to speak. I would really enjoy having something like that. I have another big name watch that has life because of the same scenario, Scott has seen it.

to answer your question, in a second:thumbup:

:001_cool::001_cool:
diver88
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,930 Posts
Where does one draw the line?

My 105.012 was in its original configuration when I purchased it. Subsequently I installed new dial and hands as the lume was gone. Then I found a NOS case complete with pushers, crown, bezel, crystal, and caseback so I took the movement out of the original case and placed it in the NOS.

At this point is my watch a legitimate 105.012? The only original parts remaining are contained in the movement.

And once I installed a display back, what's your opinion?

But I have retained all of the original components and can return the watch to original configuration at any time. Does this make a difference?

Now consider my PW2. I had a collection of parts in a drawer and was given a cal. 861 "RG" movement. When it all came together, I had what looked like a '57 reissue on the dial side:


and like this on the backside:


Some would say that PW2 is "illigitimate" or a "Frankenwatch" but I prefer to call it a custom Speedy.

But what if I had used the standard Speedy dial, hands, bezel, and caseback? On the outside it would look like a 3570.50 but with a 25-year old 861 beating inside. What would you call that?

Where does one draw the line? :confused1:

Fr. John+
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,140 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Hey Bro John

Good to see you here.

I'd say it was "custom" too. In fact I'll go one further and call it " personalised " :thumbup:

That sound good to you Bro? :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

Love seeing those pictures again.


Be well now pal :)

ZIN
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top