New Release OMEGA STEEL 321 vs DAYTONA STEEL

[toucan]

Gus I agree with every one of your comments 100%.
Looking forward to the 321!

[NIHO]

the most underrated chrono from 2019, and my absolute favorite

[AshCashEmAll]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

I love the 321 Speedmaster. But for that price, I’ll add $1000 and get a TT Daytona which fits my aesthetic taste better and I can take it down diving with me and not have to leave it on the boat.

But you can take the omega to the moon.

[-Ally-]

Originally Posted by Maxy

I would ignore the 321 and go with their Moonwatch with manual wind hesalite/sapphire glass which is phenomenal deal and best manual chronograph out there. The grey prices are around $3.5 USD. Just compare to that Daytona looks so overpriced chrono!

Street price: USD $3.5K vs $23.5K

Chalk and cheese.

[Wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Pantheon

It's a very overpriced omega

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

Agree. The 321 is way overpriced for what it is...no chance that I would pay over $5K for that watch. No way. No how.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by cgaites

Let's be real here, the 321 Speedy's primary competition in the marketplace is not the Dayton. Rather, the new 321 is competing primarily against vintage 321s. The new versions MSRP falls a bit below the market price of a mint, 100% correct ref. 105.003 "Ed White", and a bit above the market price of a similar condition/originality 145.012. For those who are not Speedy nerds like me, those are the references of the last straight lug 321 Speedy and the last lyre lug (and last ever) 321 Speedy. As such, as much as I wish it were cheaper, I think Omega's pricing strategy is spot on. Whether or not the new watches hold value near MSRP on the secondary market will be entirely dependent on how many Omega produces. As a subsidiary of a publicly traded company, I strongly suspect Omega's goal is to set production at, "as many as we can sell".

Regarding the comparison with the Daytona, on pure aesthetics I much prefer the Speedy. That said, while I think many on this forum underestimate both the water resistance (I swim with my modern Speedy with no issues) and value retention (all of mine are currently worth more than I paid) of 321/861/1861 Speedmasters, if paying MSRP at an AD, then I'd pick the Dayton. Then I could sell it, buy a modern 321 on the grey market, and pocket a few thousand dollars :)

Very good points. In this context it makes a lot of sense. This was announced on a Tuesday(Speedy Tuesday) because while not another “LE” it is definitely for fans of the Speedmaster and Omega has thrown in many cues to it’s heritage with this watch.

Can it compete with the Daytona, after considering many things...yes, it can. Did or does Omega consider this a watch to produce to go for the Daytona customer, a direct competitor, I don’t believe so.
The pricing is honestly a bit expensive but in line with vintage Ed Whites, it’s priced within its market as stated above.

I found it hard to accept but after having an open mind and really comparing what I like in a chrono, the Speedmaster is the better watch to me. Waterproofing is it’s only weak point compared to the Rolex and accuracy rating which although perhaps not chronometer/metas rated, I think Omega will insure this is an accurate watch.

Originally Posted by subtona

The Daytona is found to be illegible by many and it doesn't have the correct number of markers to accurately determine a 60 second timing event... no amount of regulating will correct this fundamental flaw.

When people talk about accuracy, in general understanding people are talking about how the watch runs. It doesn’t matter what’s on the dial. Plenty of watches don’t even have minute (Panerai) markers or even hour markers, but you can tell the time, accurately because the watch runs dependably.
I don’t understand why you always side step that and rebuttal with something that has nothing to do with how a watch runs.

The issue people mention isn’t about accuracy in reading the time, it’s about accuracy in the movement running. Which from a day to day use, I’m a 100% sure that if you own a Daytona you would be able to read the time if asked, “hey, it’s 3:44” because no one reads the time in 5ths 6ths or 8ths or any other denomination of a chronograph register. Unless you’re actually literally in a chronograph timing moment.

I understand your point, and I can’t say you’re wrong about reading the time on each watch but when a watch is rated chronometer, superlative, geneva seal(finish also) or metas, it’s referring to how the movement runs. COSC didn’t even test cased watches it just tested movements.

I for one prefer the Speedmaster and it began with aesthetics, then legibility, then quality. It’s still to be seen but I highly doubt Omega would invest so much into a Speedmaster 321 to have it keep bad time, but it’s certainly legitimate to ask about how it runs and why no rating from Omega when they rate everything else except the 1861.

[CPRWATCH]

Originally Posted by NIHO

the most underrated chrono from 2019, and my absolute favorite

That,s a beauty

[subtona]

Originally Posted by 037

It's the same overall style clasp as on the 50th, no? Pics show what looks like a rectangular housing and same style deployant buttons.

I just hate that they didn't do this in hesalite. That's a huge letdown. Irrespective of price, it has a lot of misses in my book.

Yes I believe it is the same as the 50th but I am honestly not that familiar with all the different releases.

Regarding the hesalite, also agree it is desirable. The hesalite is worlds apart in beauty and there is zero question for me which I prefer... but I dig sapphire for its quality of durability and find some joy in not having to deal with a scratch across the plexi.

In the end, I would say you can bank on omega releasing a hesalite version of the 321 to follow.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Very good points. In this context it makes a lot of sense. This was announced on a Tuesday(Speedy Tuesday) because while not another “LE” it is definitely for fans of the Speedmaster and Omega has thrown in many cues to it’s heritage with this watch.

Can it compete with the Daytona, after considering many things...yes, it can. Did or does Omega consider this a watch to produce to go for the Daytona customer, a direct competitor, I don’t believe so.
The pricing is honestly a bit expensive but in line with vintage Ed Whites, it’s priced within its market as stated above.

I found it hard to accept but after having an open mind and really comparing what I like in a chrono, the Speedmaster is the better watch to me. Waterproofing is it’s only weak point compared to the Rolex and accuracy rating which although perhaps not chronometer/metas rated, I think Omega will insure this is an accurate watch.



When people talk about accuracy, in general understanding people are talking about how the watch runs. It doesn’t matter what’s on the dial. Plenty of watches don’t even have minute (Panerai) markers or even hour markers, but you can tell the time, accurately because the watch runs dependably.
I don’t understand why you always side step that and rebuttal with something that has nothing to do with how a watch runs.

The issue people mention isn’t about accuracy in reading the time, it’s about accuracy in the movement running. Which from a day to day use, I’m a 100% sure that if you own a Daytona you would be able to read the time if asked, “hey, it’s 3:44” because no one reads the time in 5ths 6ths or 8ths or any other denomination of a chronograph register. Unless you’re actually literally in a chronograph timing moment.

I understand your point, and I can’t say you’re wrong about reading the time on each watch but when a watch is rated chronometer, superlative, geneva seal(finish also) or metas, it’s referring to how the movement runs. COSC didn’t even test cased watches it just tested movements.

I for one prefer the Speedmaster and it began with aesthetics, then legibility, then quality. It’s still to be seen but I highly doubt Omega would invest so much into a Speedmaster 321 to have it keep bad time, but it’s certainly legitimate to ask about how it runs and why no rating from Omega when they rate everything else except the 1861.

Good points and understood, my perspective is in this comparison between the two brands, the accuracy of the movement is irrelevant unless you are keeping the uncashed on a workbench ... I don’t know anyone who intends to do that so Understanding a justification for one over the other.

When I was a 1 watch guy I noticed accuracy as an afterthought.
Now that I keep a little rotation of watches, I switch the, long before any noticeable deviation occurs.

But when I wear a chronograph or a dive watch, you can be assured that I will be timing something, a parking meter, my pasta or a workout. I have owned 3 Daytona’s, if it were legible you guys wouldn’t know me, I would still be a 1 watch guy.

I can not read the minute counter on the Daytona with accuracy because I can’t see it and the chrono is by design inaccurate. Anyone who is discussing accuracy of the movement vs the dial accuracy and legibility is imho missing the big picture? Does the watch provide a function to you. If accuracy of the movement is the priority, then wouldn’tCasio or seiko be a more accurate choice choice?

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by subtona

I can not read the minute counter on the Daytona with accuracy because I can’t see it and the chrono is by design inaccurate. Anyone who is discussing accuracy of the movement vs the dial accuracy and legibility is imho missing the big picture? Does the watch provide a function to you. If accuracy of the movement is the priority, then wouldn’tCasio or seiko be a more accurate choice choice?

The Daytona has a visibility deficit for sure, and after seeing your side by side photo, I've been ruined as I now feel the Daytona is cartoonish. That aside as a pretty shiny/blingy watch, the Daytona serves that purpose among others. It's a beautiful watch with a lot of positives, however, this one particular Speedmaster can compete with it, if you have an open mind.

As for accuracy, I disagree. If accuracy was so unimportant in a mechanical watch, the industry wouldn't push for such stringent standards as we have today. Metas with Omega and Superlative with Rolex for example. Also no matter how or what we think of a mechanical watch, if it can't track time accordingly, running fast gaining 2-3 minutes day or running slow and loosing +2 minutes a day, very few would be in business. Running severely outside of a COSC standard for example is unexceptable or a watch who's rate cannot be adjusted to a consistent frequency, no.
I don't need quartz precision, but I do need to tell time accurately, my job often depends on it.
What a huge hassle to have to adjust or mentally compensate for a bad running watch every few days. Minutes do matter. No heritage or name could make me give plus $10k for a bad running watch. Just my pov.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

The Daytona has a visibility deficit for sure, and after seeing your side by side photo, I've been ruined as I now feel the Daytona is cartoonish. That aside as a pretty shiny/blingy watch, the Daytona serves that purpose among others. It's a beautiful watch with a lot of positives, however, this one particular Speedmaster can compete with it, if you have an open mind.

As for accuracy, I disagree. If accuracy was so unimportant in a mechanical watch, the industry wouldn't push for such stringent standards as we have today. Metas with Omega and Superlative with Rolex for example. Also no matter how or what we think of a mechanical watch, if it can't track time accordingly, running fast gaining 2-3 minutes day or running slow and loosing +2 minutes a day, very few would be in business. Running severely outside of a COSC standard for example is unexceptable or a watch who's rate cannot be adjusted to a consistent frequency, no.
I don't need quartz precision, but I do need to tell time accurately, my job often depends on it.
What a huge hassle to have to adjust or mentally compensate for a bad running watch every few days. Minutes do matter. No heritage or name could make me give plus $10k for a bad running watch. Just my pov.

Of course I agree accuracy matters but For me it is not the end all be all. Is there an expectation that the 321 is going to perform so poorly as to be minutes off per week?

Durability
Reliability
Legibility
Usability
Aesthetic beauty
Emotional response.

Are more important to me than a few seconds per day.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by subtona

Of course I agree accuracy matters but For me it is not the end all be all. Is there an expectation that the 321 is going to perform so poorly as to be minutes off per week?

Durability
Reliability
Legibility
Usability
Aesthetic beauty
Emotional response.

Are more important to me than a few seconds per day.

Then we have a lot more in common then you think, except aesthetic design is my first consideration.

[pepsiretail]

Originally Posted by NIHO

the most underrated chrono from 2019, and my absolute favorite

Zenith absolutely nailed this one, imho, and the ladder bracelet is fantastic.

[Partagas]

Much prefer the Speedmaster. I love Rolex, but for chronograph Speedy is what I would buy. And SS Daytona market prices make zero sense to me.

[cda555]

Originally Posted by GBD

Aside from the fauxtina, I think the 321 is more appealing in almost every way. Far and away the most iconic chronograph of all time. Much better looking, too, imo.

This x 1000... Fauxtina is an automatic deal breaker for me.

[Trog]

Originally Posted by cda555

This x 1000... Fauxtina is an automatic deal breaker for me.

Then you'll be pleased to know it's not fauxtina.

[unknown]

Originally Posted by AK797

I think you really need to tone it down with these snob and brand comments that seem to leak into alot of your comments. Just state your opinion on the watch and leave it at that, don't get personal.

I understand your point but it’s a fact that most Rolex owners know absolutely NOTHING about watches, they bought it because it’s a status symbol.

And in general, unfortunately even on this site, this gets too often confirmed.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by toucan

Gus I agree with every one of your comments 100%.
Looking forward to the 321!

[Stevec14]

I’ve had both speedmasters and Daytona’s and at mrsp and if it was possible to get these at mrsp I’d pick the Daytona of the 2. It’s a slightly poor comparison given that for the vast majority a Daytona can only be picked up at a vast percentage over mrsp. I like the new 321 but when you start to go over £11k for a steel speedy it’s a harder sell, and one where you really need to appreciate the movement, history etc to see the value.

I have 2 speedies currently including the Apollo 11 50th. If you take the Apollo 11, it has the new movement, sapphire, one of the best bracelet/clasp combos I’ve ever worn, ceramic bezel and gold bezel, hands etc and a sapphire case back with the footprint underneath.

I struggle to think I’d spend another £4k on the 321, and it makes that one look pretty good value in my eyes. In fact if the Apollo 11 had 100m water resistance, it’s that one I’d take over the Daytona.

[Trog]

For those concerned about the value proposition of the Omega Speedmaster 321, I fixed it for you:

[enjoythemusic]

Epic pic! Loving the Version 4.1.6 of the black bezel and Watsamadder thin-lumed hands.

[shlomom]

Originally Posted by Trog

For those concerned about the value proposition of the Omega Speedmaster 321, I fixed it for you:

Missing the Rolex crown ;)

[Trog]

Originally Posted by shlomom

Missing the Rolex crown ;)

Above my pay grade.

[amanbra]

I want both, I'll only be able to get one of them at RRP.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Trog

For those concerned about the value proposition of the Omega Speedmaster 321, I fixed it for you:

you sir deserve a medal =)

[Tenebris Equum]

I'm sold on the 321.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by Maxy

I would ignore the 321 and go with their Moonwatch with manual wind hesalite/sapphire glass which is phenomenal deal and best manual chronograph out there. The grey prices are around $3.5 USD. Just compare to that Daytona looks so overpriced chrono!

Street price: USD $3.5K vs $23.5K

Originally Posted by Trog

For those concerned about the value proposition of the Omega Speedmaster 321, I fixed it for you:

Same point as my post!

[321Forever]

If I could get the white Daytona at MSRP I would, in part because it's hard to get, and in part because it's a good chrono and I never owned one. Everyone knows that you'll get your cash out of that watch if you buy it at MSRP. If I didn't have the cash, I'd sell something else to get in on one of these. I'd never buy one grey...not a proponent of that stream of thinking.

I have always gravitated more towards stealth watches so the c321 is ideal for me from that perspective. It's one of the watches where it's probably best to imagine that resale is going to be harder (at least slower) than a Daytona, so I think if I got one I'd assume that I'm keeping it for an extended period. There's no detail on it that bugs me...I really like how it turned out. If they offered a c321-powered 105.012 or 145.012 with Hesalite and a steel caseback instead, I don't know if I'd jump out and get it. It somehow feels too much like my regular c861 SpeedyPro.

[037]

Originally Posted by subtona

In the end, I would say you can bank on omega releasing a hesalite version of the 321 to follow.

If they do, count me in. I like my Speedies in plastic.

[1kw]

The new 321 will be a handmade movement by one person as well as the rest of the watch. Where can you buy a handmade watch of this quality for less then the asking price. There is already a surplus of people paying 10 k for an original beat up speedy with the 321 and new one has a better bracelet, nicer finishing on the movement etc. This watch will restricted to something like a 1000 per year, the price is fair.