# O & W Earlybirds



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Are these actually much good?

I've read they used to cost less than Â£100, but now seem to be fetching as much as Â£400 when released as NOS.

I also understand the bezelz are aluminium and the wacth is therefore a bit of a lightweight.

I'm just after informed opinions of these, as I have thought about getting one..........but now I'm far from sure!

What do people think?

I generally have a high opinion of O & W's and often comment on their quality, but I'm not too sure about the quality of these Earlybirds


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

I bought JoT's Early Bird a few months ago. I like it


















They're very nice 24-hour watches in my opinion, although there's nothing particularly special about them. They're "light" on the wrist, yes, but I prefer that anyway. Compared to the Glycine Airman from around the same period they lack a date, are manual wind rather than automatic, don't hack, but are (or at least were) water-resistant to 200M. Like the Glycine Airman, I guess their current asking price is down to their history (the idea that they were popular with the US soldiers and pilots in Vietnam etc.) and consequent desirability to today's collectors. If you consider that a good 60's Glycine Airman might fetch in excess of $1000, Â£400 for an Early Bird may not seem so extravagant after all.


----------



## MIKE (Feb 23, 2003)

8 OUT OF 10 WORMS LIKE THEM :eek










I like mine, they are a bit "lightweight" compared to an Airman.

I only paid Â£100 for mine







I would not shell out Â£400 for one







but an intresting watch if you can get it at the "right price"









MIKE.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)




----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Hmmm.... RLT Early Bird homage?


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Not a bad idea. And with a beefing up on quality it would be desirable


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I can hear Roy swearing from here


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

In Bridlington everyone can hear you scream


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

There has been talk of an A. I. Wajs Earlybird reissue for over a year now .... I am begining to lose hope


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

jasonm said:


> Hmmm.... RLT Early Bird homage?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm interested









By the way thats a great picture Mike







The worm has class


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

One of my favourite features (that doesn't show in the majority of photos) of the Early Bird is the shape of the case and the way the lugs curve around the wrist


















I'm not sure a modern case currently exists that could be used in a re-issue or homage that can match this


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> I'm not sure a modern case currently exists that could be used in a re-issue or homage that can match this


Ive got a blow torch and a vice


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

What about this Zeno CAF style homage


----------



## traveller (Feb 27, 2003)

Comparing the mass of an Earlybird to two other "military" watches without strap.

1. Earlybird 438 gramme

2. O & W MP manual 412 gramme

3. CWC quartz 377 gramme

That may give some indication.


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

jasonm said:


> > I'm not sure a modern case currently exists that could be used in a re-issue or homage that can match this
> 
> 
> Ive got a blow torch and a vice
> ...


Yes but has Roy


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

> Comparing the mass of an Earlybird to two other "military" watches without strap.
> 
> 1. Earlybird 438 gramme
> 
> ...










Sorry..........but they cant possibly weigh as much as that.

97 g is a hell of a weight for a watch, so around 400g just cant be right!!


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

Griff said:


> > Comparing the mass of an Earlybird to two other "military" watches without strap.
> >
> > 1. Earlybird 438 gramme
> >
> ...










Must be a decimal point somewhere


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

The Earlybird I had was one of the lightest watches I have ever owned ....









Are you sure you are not measuring the weight on Jupiter?


----------



## traveller (Feb 27, 2003)

Oops! 43.8g, 41.2g & 37.7g. 438g is nearly a jar of jam!

Their mass will be the same on Jupiter as on Earth







The weight (newtons) will be different though depending on gravitational pull.

But the E/B is still heavier than MP and CWC.


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

traveller said:


> Oops! 43.8g, 41.2g & 37.7g. 438g is nearly a jar of jam!
> 
> Their mass will be the same on Jupiter as on Earth
> 
> ...


That sounds more like it..


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

traveller said:


> Oops! 43.8g, 41.2g & 37.7g. 438g is nearly a jar of jam!
> 
> Their mass will be the same on Jupiter as on Earth
> 
> ...


I know that's why I said weight and not mass


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

The relative weight of a watch on Jupiter is only 2.364 times that of Earth ... I thought it would be more


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

Go on then JoT get the slide rule out and do the sums, were dying to know


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

pg tips said:


> Go on then JoT get the slide rule out and do the sums, were dying to know
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seeing as traveller has turned all metric and doesnt like my informal usage of weight I would feel obliged to give the result in Newtons


----------



## JonW (Mar 23, 2005)

Got my EB today and whilst its been slated for its lightweight bezel I actually rather like it. As Rich says the case sides are really very cool and give you the impression that watch is much slimmer than it would otherwise have been and the bezel is a different take on the ammodising that you normally get on an insert. I dont suppose bezles are still avaialable so keeping them mint may be an issue, but as a 24hour watch with a GMT bezel it does its job pretty well. Got mine on Roys HDN two piece which suits it rather well.


----------

