Category 5 Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 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?
Pugwash Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 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.
Highflyingclive Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 Just nudge the 6 o'clock subdial to the timezone of your choice and ... Bingo! GMT function at no extra charge. Bargain. This will probably be my next watch from Josua.
Pugwash Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 This will probably be my next watch from Josua. I'd love one, but I'd have to sell watches to get one. Anyone want a 2nd/3rd gen ETA PO for a good price?
retep Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 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
Helmut Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) 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 June 12, 2006 by Helmut
fkhill33 Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 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
infinitime Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 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...
retep Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 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.
Helmut Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 and that one is as near as that is available at the moment. Until a movement comes along that addresses the subdial issue, thats about it. Anything coming along?
infinitime Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 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.
retep Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 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.
yt74 Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 Can somebody with an eye for these compare Josh's to Kings, shown here: http://www.cclv.net/0.htm
retep Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 (edited) In my opinion the one i got from El is more correct. see here precious time has or had the same see here Edited June 13, 2006 by retep
ArtM3 Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 close... 3, 6 & 9 markers too short crown not recessed the crystal should be hesalite (plastic) it's probably my favorite watch
crystalcranium Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 (edited) 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 June 13, 2006 by crystalcranium
ArtM3 Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 It took me a while, but I found a great book...The Moon watch by Omega...large format 10x13 , 150+ pages, history, tests, tons of pics... a must for afficianados of this instrument...
700club Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 beautiful watch. the subdial spacing is off quite a bit though.
Helmut Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 I would say artm3 and speedy1s are genuine due to the subdial spacing. If not, tell me where you got them!
ryaku Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 I would say artm3 and speedy1s are genuine due to the subdial spacing. If not, tell me where you got them! Alas, you're right, still no replica has correct subdial spacings.
crystalcranium Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 This is semi-on topic but doesn't Omega use a base movement ETA 7750 or 7753 for their automatic Speedmasters? I know there's one in my SMP diver chrono but that's a new design. If they do, wouldn't the subdial spacing be the same?
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now