# Omega Speedmaster Automatic



## squareleg (Mar 6, 2008)

This watch often gets a somewhat muted reception, so I thought I'd say a few words about it in its defence, along with some q&d pics. Btw, this is the watch I finally settled upon (after much research and hand-wringing) as a 50th birthday present to myself. 

*So, why the Speedmaster Automatic? *

1. Well, firstly, it's an auto. I've always had automatics, having been a fan of these robust little miracles of engineering all my life. I've never owned a quartz watch because, for me, they lack that little element of magic. Can't put it any other way - that's just how it is. However, I do own an electric watch... but that's another story - and different sort of marvel. As for wind-up watches well, I've owned some but, once again, they just don't do it for me... plus, I always forget to wind them. So, it's autos all the way for me.

2. It's got 'Omega' written on it - and 'Speedmaster'. The Speedie has almost legendary status, being the first watch worn on the moon, so this fella has pedigree. I know the auto is smaller, has a different movement, blah blah but, if I half close my eyes and kid myself a bit, it's a Pro.

3. Thirdly, it's thin. I only have one other chrono, a Seiko 6138-3000, and there is a huge difference in thickness. In defence of the Seiko, this was one of the first automatic chronos in history, I believe, so kudos there - but it doesn't make it any thinner. Beautiful as it is, the Seiko is a bit of a lump! 

4. Legibility. Even without my glasses on, and in only moderate light, I can still read the time. Bingo. The lume is not first rate, however - but will still glow quite cheerily for a little while, having been exposed to sufficient light.

*Other plus points*:

*Price:* Second-hand, you should be able to pick one up, in excellent condition, for around the Â£700 mark - a saving of some Â£500 over the Pro.

*Size*: It's smaller than the Pro but, do you know what? Not much. I have 7.5 inch wrists and it looks exactly right. The huge Seiko 6138 chrono, on the other hand, which is similar in size to the Pro, looks good... but is just a bit enormous - and it loses something for that, I think. On the other hand, if your wrists are a bit larger, I guess the Pro would look fantastic.

*Time-keeping:* no idea, as I've never tested it. However, I set it to the radio / computer about every few days and it's never more than a couple of minutes out, which is more than adequate for me.

Well, there you are - all in all, a cracking watch. It looks great, it's comfortable, it's legible... you can even use it to boil an egg (forgot to say that the chrono pushers are silky smooth) and it's got all the charm, history and associations of it's more celebrated bigger brother... but at almost half the price. Kerching!

Anyway, here's some pics.

The RLT obligatory 'Jot Shot'! 










The Classic 'Speedie' looks (note the seconds hand has no 'arrow head' detail, unlike the Pro)










The Omega signed crown:










The clasp. Note this is now the older style, as it has been superseded by a fold-over clasp:










Lastly, the back. Note, it does say 'Speedmaster'! (Btw, serial number removed for security purposes)










If you can spot any inaccuracies in this post, please let me know. I don't know, off-hand, what movement number this is, but I'm sure someone will (probably William  ). Lastly, if you're curious, lugs are 18mm. I've just ordered an 18mm black Nato, so will post a pic with that at some stage.

Cheers,

Nick


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

Good stuff! :thumbsup: All valid points. I think Omega wanted to make a Pro "like" watch without lessening the Pro's status by placing an automatic movement in the same case with the same dial.

The older ones had the 1143 and the newer ones use the 3220 movements. They swithed calibres around the turn of the century as I recall.

Later,

William


----------



## squareleg (Mar 6, 2008)

Thanks, William.  I'm guessing then that mine is probably a 3220 - it must be written somewhere in the documentation but all that stuff is in storage, so I can't confirm. I also seem to recall you saying that the two movements are by different manufacturers. Is that correct?


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

The 1143 uses the ETA 2890-A2 as the base calibre and a Dubois-DÃ©praz 2020 chrono complication for a total of 45 jewels. The 3220 uses the 2892-A2 with the same chrono complication for a total of 47 jewels.

Later,

William


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

Sometimes simple is superb. Case in point. ^ Great looking watch, and eminently readable as you said. Thanks for the post.


----------



## markffw (Mar 30, 2010)

I bought a mint auto from Chronomaster about a year ago , fantastic watch and i don't seem to be getting board with it yet.


----------



## Disco You (Jun 22, 2010)

It does indeed look very nice, but I must say that if I myself were to buy a Speedmaster, it would probably be a co-axial.

Either that or the snoopy, which I absolutely love!


----------



## Dusty (Feb 3, 2010)

William_Wilson said:


> Good stuff! :thumbsup: All valid points. I think Omega wanted to make a Pro "like" watch without lessening the Pro's status by placing an automatic movement in the same case with the same dial.
> 
> The older ones had the 1143 and the newer ones use the 3220 movements. They swithed calibres around the turn of the century as I recall.
> 
> ...


Not the same dial......the Pro has the running sec sub dial @ 9 and the minute counter sub dial @ 3 so the other way round to the auto dial :thumbsup:


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

Dusty said:


> Not the same dial......the Pro has the running sec sub dial @ 9 and the minute counter sub dial @ 3 so the other way round to the auto dial :thumbsup:


Yes, that was my point, the "reduced" looks the same at a quick glance, but side by side with the Pro is quite different. Very much the like the Mark II, which was identical on the inside but was a completely different animal on the outside, compared to the Pro.

Later,

William


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

i have got to say (....runs as he takes cover....) that the speedie is possibly the most disapointing watch ive handled h34r: .....i so much wanted to like it....but it left me a little cold to be honest....

I agree that its a pretty watch, but for me, its one of those watches that imvvvho looks better off the wrist.....

I know that the majority will disagree, and will point to my thing for orange & seikos'  but when i wore it, it just didn't inspire me.....

each to there own :thumbsup: as i'm sure theres plenty that think that my taste in watches is sh!t :lol:


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

mrteatime said:


> i have got to say (....runs as he takes cover....) that the speedie is possibly the most disapointing watch ive handled h34r: .....i so much wanted to like it....but it left me a little cold to be honest....
> 
> I agree that its a pretty watch, but for me, its one of those watches that imvvvho looks better off the wrist.....
> 
> ...


I'm not going to shot you down. I have a mid 90's Speedy Automatic "Reduced", an early 70's gold plated Seamaster Automatic Chronograph and an early 70's gold plated Speedy Mark II. I find I rarely wear them now. At the beginning of the year I went crazy and decided to get another watch. It came down to a Pro or a Seamaster 300. The 300 won, it was easy to read and did exactly what I wanted it to do. I'm not getting rid of my chronos, but I'm not hunting for a Pro anytime soon either. All of that being said, the Speedy "Reduced" is a nice low cost choice that goes well under a shirt cuff.

Later,

William


----------



## squareleg (Mar 6, 2008)

mrteatime said:


> i have got to say (....runs as he takes cover....) that the speedie is possibly the most disapointing watch ive handled h34r: .....i so much wanted to like it....but it left me a little cold to be honest....
> 
> I agree that its a pretty watch, but for me, its one of those watches that imvvvho looks better off the wrist.....
> 
> ...


Just for you, Mr T... how about if it looked like this:










Better?


----------



## squareleg (Mar 6, 2008)

Anyway - as previously discussed, here is a wrist shot on an 18mm Nato G10 which arrived this morning. Pretty cool, I think... and much lighter in weight than the bracelet.




























.


----------



## Draygo (Mar 18, 2010)

...looks surprisingly great on the NATO.

Cheers


----------



## wotchmen (Jul 4, 2010)

Omega seamaster is heavy ???


----------



## Deptfordboy (Oct 27, 2006)

Nice tribute! I do think this is a 'Cinderella' watch, forever in the shadow of the manual Pro. I have one with rose gold bezel and pushers, and find it really good-looking, hassle-free and a great daily watch. The relative slimness also means it can be worn with long-sleeved shirts in a way that, say, my IWC Flieger can't be. I dare say they are not a great 'investment' but there's more to life than that!


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

squareleg said:


> mrteatime said:
> 
> 
> > i have got to say (....runs as he takes cover....) that the speedie is possibly the most disapointing watch ive handled h34r: .....i so much wanted to like it....but it left me a little cold to be honest....
> ...


i'd buy it


----------



## watchking1 (Nov 14, 2007)

> It's a girls case size. And if you insist upon buying it, you better grab that warranty. If something goes wrong with that movement, it's expensive to fix
> 
> Not a very helpful post, really. And, as William points out, wrong on both counts.


You may want to read this from the late, great Chuck Maddox who actually knew a little bit about the Omega Speedmaster brand:

My link

And here regarding the size of the Speedmaster reduced:

My link


----------



## squareleg (Mar 6, 2008)

Regarding the 'expensive to fix' thing: well, I'm not going to argue with Chuck Maddox. He may be right. If mine ever goes wrong, I'll report back. However, it's a reasonably expensive watch, so I guess repairs are never going to be cheap. I guess if you can stump up the cash to buy one in the first place then, relatively speaking, you won't be that hurt by repair bills. We probably all have - and love - cheaper watches. In any case, repairing a vintage Seiko would probably cost easily as much as replacing even an entire Omega chronograph movement.

Regarding the 'girls case size' thing, I have to say that's just nonsense. You buy a watch to fit you, not the other way round. Besides, almost all dress watches are smaller than the 'reduced' and we all happily wear those.


----------



## William_Wilson (May 21, 2007)

watchking1 said:


> You may want to read this from the late, great Chuck Maddox who actually knew a little bit about the Omega Speedmaster brand:
> 
> My link


Here is a snip from Chuck's opening to the article:

"A year and a half ago if I were to list the watches in the current line that I wanted to own, the Speedy Auto Reduced, along with the Schumacher Triple Date (non-arabic) were both on it with the ones that remain on it. I still like both watches but find my desire to own them has waned. Not so much because they are not great watches, but that there are other watches that I like better."

During the course of the article, Chuck simply points out that the 1143 and 3220 movements have a Dubois-Dupraz module which is best left to Omega to service. He does not condemn it, as he did the rattrapante chronos that Omega produced, and regretted.



watchking1 said:


> And here regarding the size of the Speedmaster reduced:
> 
> My link


This seems to be a debate about the pronunciation of the word "potato".









Later,

William


----------



## Philz (Oct 20, 2009)

Well I have to agree. I just love my Auto and will never part with it. For me it epitomises class and sports look without being overstated. I have mine on a beads of rice but can't make my mind up if it looks better on the black leather rally strap.


----------



## suggsy (Aug 25, 2008)

Well I'm definitely in the market for the auto as I prefer them to having to manually wind a watch as in the pro.

Incidentally, just a silly question, how long do the speedy pro's run for after being fully wound?


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

mrteatime said:


> i have got to say (....runs as he takes cover....) that the speedie is possibly the most disapointing watch ive handled h34r: .....i so much wanted to like it....but it left me a little cold to be honest....


I agree with you, what a disappointment. I didn't buy mine, I'd never wanted one, it came in a trade. Browsing watch forums, "ubiquitous" or what? I never understood the appeal.

I moved it on a few months back but handled it last week before sending it off for repair, for a friend, promptly fell in love it with and am now in negotiations to buy it back.


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

MarkF said:


> mrteatime said:
> 
> 
> > i have got to say (....runs as he takes cover....) that the speedie is possibly the most disapointing watch ive handled h34r: .....i so much wanted to like it....but it left me a little cold to be honest....
> ...


Well, it's back. Same problem as before, I've been wearing a 42mm for a while and the Omega seems too small.


----------



## Stinch (Jul 9, 2008)

I still like mine










Roger


----------



## squareleg (Mar 6, 2008)

MarkF said:


> Well, it's back. Same problem as before, I've been wearing a 42mm for a while and the Omega seems too small.


I kind of know what you mean, Mark. Before I got mine, I'd been wearing my Seiko 6138-3000 for a while... which is enormous. The smaller Omega felt slightly odd at first but this was rapidly (an hour or so) replaced by the blessed relief of getting my wrist back! :lol: There's no doubt whatsoever that the Pro has more cachet and is a more desirable watch (incidentally, I have never even handled one but would like to try it one day) but the auto has a charm - and a desirability - all of its own. Its a different baby - a bit smaller, a bit gawkier and perhaps a bit less handsome than its more celebrated older sibling - but its a lovely thing nonetheless.


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

It* is* a lovely thing. 

I am not BIG watch wearer, my preferred size is 40mm, I think all my wearers are 40mm apart from a one. I like 40mm. The Omega tho', has the bezel as well as being a tad small, so to me, it "wears" small too. I am going to give it till Saturday before making my mind up............


----------

