The new Cal. 321 “Ed White” is Omega’s ...

[Darlinboy]

No contest for me... 321. Got the call and incoming shortly.

[ratty]

Looking at the above picture, are both watches shown in the same scale / perspective?

The 321 appears to be noticeably longer lug to lug than the pro.

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by ratty

Looking at the above picture, are both watches shown in the same scale / perspective?

The 321 appears to be noticeably longer lug to lug than the pro.

It is slightly longer by about 1mm I think (48 vs 47). It looks longer than is it because the lugs of the pro come in slightly diagonally as opposed to straight across.

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by Darlinboy

No contest for me... 321. Got the call and incoming shortly.

Awesome

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by ratty

Looking at the above picture, are both watches shown in the same scale / perspective?

The 321 appears to be noticeably longer lug to lug than the pro.

The 321 pic would need to be scaled down a little to make the comparison fair (assuming that the bezel diameter is indeed the same).

[Cassidy776]

Originally Posted by Darlinboy

No contest for me... 321. Got the call and incoming shortly.

No contest here either..........the 3861 is the clear winner as far as the beauty of the dial!!!

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Cassidy776

No contest here either..........the 3861 is the clear winner as far as the beauty of the dial!!!

How so?

[ratty]

I think that the above picture helps to explain why the 321 looked so sparkly to me when I saw it.

The polished lugs combined with the polished end pieces of the bracelet between the lugs, gave the impression of two large areas of highly polished metal at each end of the dial. I remember thinking that I could not see any case at the sides of the watch, just these two big areas of 'sparkle' at each end when compared to a Speedy Pro. I'm also not a fan of the ceramic bezel. To me, this emphisised the black bezel and dial and made the watch look small on the wrist and again noticeably brighter than the Pro. model. I'm also sure that the bright lighting in the OB did not help with this.

I quite like pictures of the 321 on leather straps, because it dulls it down a bit, but it will be difficult to see this combination in person at the moment before buying one.

[Duke84]

Originally Posted by ratty

I think that the above picture helps to explain why the 321 looked so sparkly to me when I saw it.

The polished lugs combined with the polished end pieces of the bracelet between the lugs, gave the impression of two large areas of highly polished metal at each end of the dial. I remember thinking that I could not see any case at the sides of the watch, just these two big areas of 'sparkle' at each end when compared to a Speedy Pro. I'm also not a fan of the ceramic bezel. To me, this emphisised the black bezel and dial and made the watch look small on the wrist and again noticeably brighter than the Pro. model. I'm also sure that the bright lighting in the OB did not help with this.

I quite like pictures of the 321 on leather straps, because it dulls it down a bit, but it will be difficult to see this combination in person at the moment before buying one.

Ratty, where have you seen photos of the Ed White 321 on leather straps? I've been looking for some, but haven't seen any. Thanks.

[texasmade]

Originally Posted by Duke84

Ratty, where have you seen photos of the Ed White 321 on leather straps? I've been looking for some, but haven't seen any. Thanks.

Someone on the omegaforums put their 321 Ed White on a leather strap and posted it awhile back.

[Cassidy776]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

How so?

Look at it!!!!

[Darlinboy]

The original - a '64, sold a while back. Will be good to have the modern heritage reference for regular wear.

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by Cassidy776

Look at it!!!!

So the applied logo and the less writing? All the rest is the same as I see it....

It does look a lot cleaner IMO

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by texasmade

Someone on the omegaforums put their 321 Ed White on a leather strap and posted it awhile back.

Yep, and it didn’t look that that great imo. Compared to the pro it seemed quite a large gap between case and strap (but to be fair that might have been angle)

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by Stevec14

So the applied logo and the less writing? All the rest is the same as I see it....

It does look a lot cleaner IMO

Vintage lume on the 321 vs white lume, deeper sub dials on the 3861, fewer hash marks between the seconds on the 3861 (each of the hash mark designs works for their respective movements), shorter minutes indices on 3861, aluminum bezel vs ceramic for starters. No Crown guards vs crown guards. Straight lugs vs twisted (shorter). Both (in that photo) have applied logos.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Darlinboy

No contest for me... 321. Got the call and incoming shortly.

Looking forward to the incoming and your thoughts

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Cassidy776

Look at it!!!!

Well argued

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by gnuyork

Vintage lume on the 321 vs white lume, deeper sub dials on the 3861, fewer hash marks between the seconds on the 3861 (each of the hash mark designs works for their respective movements), shorter minutes indices on 3861, aluminum bezel vs ceramic for starters. No Crown guards vs crown guards. Straight lugs vs twisted (shorter). Both (in that photo) have applied logos.

The bezel and the case/ crown guards are not part of what was being discussed - more what made the 3861 dial more appealing.

I take a very opposite view. The lack of writing, the vintage lume etc make it more appealing to me and in the case of the Lume gives it a warmth that I like. The 3861 dial looks comparatively cluttered to my eyes.

Still, all personal preference at the end of the day

[ratty]

Originally Posted by Duke84

Ratty, where have you seen photos of the Ed White 321 on leather straps? I've been looking for some, but haven't seen any. Thanks.

There were some photos on a 321 thread on here not so long ago, I think it was around the end of November, beginning of December time.

It was the “321 Steel Released?” thread that I was thinking about.

I thought it looked good, but I don’t mind seeing gaps between the case and the strap. I think the gaps can make a watch look older and more classic which, to my eye, suits the 321 style.

[Cassidy776]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

Well argued

There's nothing to argue about when it comes to one's personal preferences in what appeals to each individual. I prefer the 3861 dial, you prefer the Ed White dial. You prefer faux patina, I don't, etc., etc.

Thanks for your insight but no one asked for it

[Cassidy776]

Originally Posted by gnuyork

Vintage lume on the 321 vs white lume, deeper sub dials on the 3861, fewer hash marks between the seconds on the 3861 (each of the hash mark designs works for their respective movements), shorter minutes indices on 3861, aluminum bezel vs ceramic for starters. No Crown guards vs crown guards. Straight lugs vs twisted (shorter). Both (in that photo) have applied logos.

[VogelPhoenix]

Picked up my Cal.321 today (proof below). I think the OP absolutely nailed it with his comparison to the RO Jumbo. Not necessarily in the sense of creating a Jumbo-like hype, but as a modern recreation of a classic piece, with a combination of modern touches and a somewhat delicate vintage feel, and a role as a halo piece for a whole family of watches. Like the Jumbo it also sits in a near perfect spot size-wise. It's probably not for everyone (and the ambitious price alone will see to that), but it's pretty much perfect for what it is meant to be.

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

Picked up my Cal.321 today (proof below). I think the OP absolutely nailed it with his comparison to the RO Jumbo. Not necessarily in the sense of creating a Jumbo-like hype, but as a modern recreation of a classic piece, with a combination of modern touches and a somewhat delicate vintage feel, and a role as a halo piece for a whole family of watches. Like the Jumbo it also sits in a near perfect spot size-wise. It's probably not for everyone (and the ambitious price alone will see to that), but it's pretty much perfect for what it is meant to be.

Congratulations - very nice indeed. Enjoy the new watch

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

Picked up my Cal.321 today (proof below). I think the OP absolutely nailed it with his comparison to the RO Jumbo. Not necessarily in the sense of creating a Jumbo-like hype, but as a modern recreation of a classic piece, with a combination of modern touches and a somewhat delicate vintage feel, and a role as a halo piece for a whole family of watches. Like the Jumbo it also sits in a near perfect spot size-wise. It's probably not for everyone (and the ambitious price alone will see to that), but it's pretty much perfect for what it is meant to be.

Congrats!

[Mr gadget]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

Picked up my Cal.321 today (proof below). I think the OP absolutely nailed it with his comparison to the RO Jumbo. Not necessarily in the sense of creating a Jumbo-like hype, but as a modern recreation of a classic piece, with a combination of modern touches and a somewhat delicate vintage feel, and a role as a halo piece for a whole family of watches. Like the Jumbo it also sits in a near perfect spot size-wise. It's probably not for everyone (and the ambitious price alone will see to that), but it's pretty much perfect for what it is meant to be.

Congratulations. Love mine and the bracelet is first class

[subtona]

big congratulations VogelPhoenix

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Mr gadget

Love mine and the bracelet is first class

The bracelet is interesting. It looks great and is very comfortable, but off the wrist it feels very delicate compared to e.g. a Rolex oyster. Matches the character of the cal. 321 very well.

[illiguy]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

Picked up my Cal.321 today (proof below). I think the OP absolutely nailed it with his comparison to the RO Jumbo. Not necessarily in the sense of creating a Jumbo-like hype, but as a modern recreation of a classic piece, with a combination of modern touches and a somewhat delicate vintage feel, and a role as a halo piece for a whole family of watches. Like the Jumbo it also sits in a near perfect spot size-wise. It's probably not for everyone (and the ambitious price alone will see to that), but it's pretty much perfect for what it is meant to be.

Stunning. Wear in good health, as one of the very few (in the entire world) to own this piece at the moment!

[raclaims]

Congrats!!! Can't wait to get mine

[Darlinboy]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

The bracelet is interesting. It looks great and is very comfortable, but off the wrist it feels very delicate compared to e.g. a Rolex oyster. Matches the character of the cal. 321 very well.

I only wish for another adjustment slot or two. Otherwise it’s a fantastic execution and true to the original reference.