Jump to content
When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.
  • Current Donation Goals

Is This A Perfect Rendition Of The Moon Watch?


Category 5

Recommended Posts

Looks excellent to me in pics...

Looks very nice. I was looking at it myself earlier. The problem is a Lemania one. The hour hand subdial follows the main hour hand, as all Lemania Chronos do. This, in my books, stops it from being 'perfect'. Freezing the dial would still mean it wasn't fully functional, and therefore still not perfect.

Still, it's damned good, and I want one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://perfect-clones.com/product_info.php...products_id=633

Looks excellent to me in pics... PLus, it has sapphire instead of mineral.

Didn't the original use a Lemania as well? Also, does the lemania have the chrono trouble the 7750's do?

Hi looks indeed very nice but is not completly the same as gen.

The gen uses a hesalite crystal instead of sapphire. The hessalite is domed.

The original movement is a omega caliber 1861 wich is a manual movement. The rep uses a venus copy movement wich makes the subdial at 6 not work like the gen ( it just follows the hours) wich is why a lot of people have had that subdial "killed".

The accent grave is missing on tachymetre.

Subdial spacing is way off

The hourmarker at 3, 6 and 9 o `clock is too short.

But don`t let that stop you because i agree it`s a very nice watch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovely watch. Always a classic and that one is as near as that is available at the moment.

Does a genuine case back fit this one?

I would like to put one of these on if and when I get one.

A gen bezel would cure the lack of accent grave. Again, would it fit on this? And the same again for the hesalite crystal (I know the pukka Moon watch didnt use sapphire due to its properties under pressure).

Edited by Helmut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per retep's comment, the subdials are the biggest faults here guys. They should not be so *far out*, if you compare to a gen, the dials are much closer together hence the minute markers on 3 6 9 should be the same length as the other markers.

This watch looks more like the speedy automatic, which is a smaller watch but at least the dials are like this rep here.

Another thing is that the subdials should be recessed, not sure if this is the case here on the rep.

I could be wrong (and please correct me if I am), there are at least 2 versions of the speedy pro, one with the clear caseback and the other with out a clear case back. The clear caseback is made from saphire and so is the cystal where as the *official* speedy pro that does not have a see-throu caseback uses the hesalite crystal (which is like a plastic). The domed hesalite crystal is really cool on the gen and although it does scratches easily, it polish off perfectly without much effort.

The reason for the hesalite is because hesalite doesn't shatter like saphire, and it is not a good idea to have broken glass floating around when you are in space. I am not 100% sure if NASA demanded this or it was the original design from Omega but the speedypro without see through caseback still uses the hesalite today.

The seethrough caseback was made after the moonlanding, since the caseback was already saphire, i think they made the watch face crystal saphire too.

Well, thast my understanding anyway =)

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see how this is "perfect" when the sub-dial spacing is off, the six-o'clock sub-dial is only a redundant hour hand, and the movement is clearly not close to the original...

I know not perfection at all but it still brings a smile to my face when i have it on my wrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a better suggestion?

i don't have a better suggestion... all i am saying is that it is somewhat of an exaggeration to suggest this is "perfect", when there are so many other good reps out there, which are considerably closer to being IDENTICAL to the original. For example, using hte 7750 movement, there is the Breitling chronographs, which have no sub-dial spacing issue. Or the Cartier Tank 2000 from Joshua, which uses the SAME movement (ETA 2000) as the original, or hte Franck Muller Conquistador, which comes pretty close to be exactly correct.

Don't take offense, but any Omega enthusists worth his salt would spot these reps to be a rep, whereas it would be harder with each of hte above-referenced models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't have a better suggestion... all i am saying is that it is somewhat of an exaggeration to suggest this is "perfect", when there are so many other good reps out there, which are considerably closer to being IDENTICAL to the original. For example, using hte 7750 movement, there is the Breitling chronographs, which have no sub-dial spacing issue. Or the Cartier Tank 2000 from Joshua, which uses the SAME movement (ETA 2000) as the original, or hte Franck Muller Conquistador, which comes pretty close to be exactly correct.

Don't take offense, but any Omega enthusists worth his salt would spot these reps to be a rep, whereas it would be harder with each of hte above-referenced models.

I believe none of the responders called it perfect! The only two who uses the term perfect is category 5 and he is questioning it and yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per retep's comment, the subdials are the biggest faults here guys. They should not be so *far out*, if you compare to a gen, the dials are much closer together hence the minute markers on 3 6 9 should be the same length as the other markers.

This watch looks more like the speedy automatic, which is a smaller watch but at least the dials are like this rep here.

Another thing is that the subdials should be recessed, not sure if this is the case here on the rep.

I could be wrong (and please correct me if I am), there are at least 2 versions of the speedy pro, one with the clear caseback and the other with out a clear case back. The clear caseback is made from saphire and so is the cystal where as the *official* speedy pro that does not have a see-throu caseback uses the hesalite crystal (which is like a plastic). The domed hesalite crystal is really cool on the gen and although it does scratches easily, it polish off perfectly without much effort.

The reason for the hesalite is because hesalite doesn't shatter like saphire, and it is not a good idea to have broken glass floating around when you are in space. I am not 100% sure if NASA demanded this or it was the original design from Omega but the speedypro without see through caseback still uses the hesalite today.

The seethrough caseback was made after the moonlanding, since the caseback was already saphire, i think they made the watch face crystal saphire too.

Well, thast my understanding anyway =)

cheers

NASA bought the Omega Speedmaster they tested to flight qualify "over the counter". The Speedmaster was the only watch to meet all of their demands including some watches built from the ground up (The Bulova Accutron to name one) to satisfy the specifications. The plastic crystal was standard. NASA never had a plastic crystal pre-requisite for spaceflight. This is something of an urban legend.

http://www.yorktime.com/articles/200405212862

Edited by crystalcranium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up