Marcus Hanke[PuristSPro Moderator]
11515
Omega 9300 Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch chronograph in-depth review
Mar 01, 2014,15:37 PM
Omega cal. 9300 Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch chronograph experience test
by Marcus Hanke
I
can safely assume that the two most iconic wristwatch models in history
are the Rolex Submariner and Omega’s famous „Moonwatch“, the
Speedmaster Professional. But while the Rolex did not see too many
apparent changes and modifications, the Speedmaster is - I am sure - the
watch model with the most variants and versions in the history of
horology. Quite a long path has been taken after the Speedmaster
Professional accompanied man’s first step onto the moon in 1969. It is
really worth to read Jack Forster’s excellent and most concise article
on the Speedmaster, which you can find here:
www.watchprosite.com
(part 1)
omega.watchprosite.com
(part 2)
While the most authentic Moonwatches were always
equipped with manual winding movements, Omega released selfwinding
variants soon. These, however, always played a minor role in the
popularity ranking, with only a few exceptions, like the Speedmaster
with automatic Lémania 5100 movement.
Most of the time, the
basic layout of the Speedy Pro remained the same, with three subcounters
for elapsed minutes and hours, and a small permanent second (again with
the exception of the 5100-equipped model, that had a central minute
counter, but a 24 hours indication in the third subcounter).
This
era now comes to an end, with the advent of the celebrated new cal.
9300 movement. Unlike the traditional tri-compax subdial layout,
chronographs equipped with the new movement feature a so-called
bi-compax design with only two subdials at 9 and 3.
The
cal. 9300’s uniqueness lies in the combination of the counters for
elapsed minutes and hours in but one subdial at 3. However, the changes
induced by the integration of the new movement are much more
substantial, due to the state-of-the-art technology used. This will be
thoroughly discussed in a later chapter of the review, though.
I. First Impression:
This
watch is not thick. It is fat. Believe me, I am a heavyweight myself,
and I know all those tricks to appear slimmer: vertical stripes, baggy
clothes, dark colours - at the end of the day, one is still fat. Omega
made use of all trickery available in watchmaking: a highly domed
sapphire crystal not only above the dial, but also on the caseback tries
to make watch substance vanish, at least when looked at from the side;
the multi-stepped Speedmaster case with the exposed tachymeter bezel and
many facets with variations of brushed and polished surface finishes
further adds to the impression. As a result, the 9300 Speedmaster’s
optical presence is a lot less obtrusive than that of the 9300 Seamaster
Planet Ocean, which confronts the spectator with a massive lump of
stainless steel more resembling an accessory of Marvel’s Ironman, than a
wristwatch. Yet still, the new Speedmaster is very likely to become a
most intimate friend with all door frames and furniture edges in your
home.
As
soon as the wrist is turned a bit to get a clear view on the watch’s
front, all snidely comments on its proportions are forgotten: this is a
helluva attractive timepiece!
II. Case, Crystal and Crown:
As
I had stated above already, the Omega chronographs equipped with the
new cal. 9300 movement share rather high cases. However, with an overall
height of 16mm, the 9300 Speedmaster Professional is only about a
millimetre thicker than the average 7750-chronograph, but appears to be
substantially higher. Since I did not want to rely on my own subjective
perception, I asked several Omega dealers about their experiences with
customer opinions: all of them confirmed that critical comments on the
watch’s thickness (even more so on that of the massive Planet Ocean
chronograph) are very common.
Then I measured two other
Speedmaster chronographs that normally (myself included) are described
as „nicely thin on the wrist“. To my astonishment, the classic hesalite
handwinding Speedmaster Professional „Moonwatch“ is 14.5mm high, only
1.5mm less than the much larger new 9300 Speedmaster. The latter’s
direct predecessor, the cal. 3313 movement-equipped Speedmaster
Professional Co-axial, sitting on the wrist flat as a fluke, is even a
little bit thinner, with a height of 14.22mm. Maybe it is due to its
relatively large diameter of more than 44mm that it appears so thin, but
the new 9300 Speedmaster with the same diameter should not appear so
much fatter than the 2.78mm difference in height suggest.
It
seems that human perception of aesthetics and proportions are kicking
in here, since only a slight deviation from what is generally considered
„harmonious“ or „attractive“ appears to have a disproportionate
negative effect on the reaction.
Leaving the proportions issue
aside, the Speedmaster case is the perfection of a style established
since roughly fifty years: The multi-stepped case has a mixture of
brushed and polished surfaces, the „free-floating“ bezel ring with the
tachymeter scale is practically begging for damages following rough
contacts with the environment, but simply looks gorgeous, and is the
iconic attribute of the „Moonwatch“. Its black insert appears to be
ceramic, but this cannot be confirmed.
Quoting
an exact value for the diameter is difficult on a Speedmaster case,
since it is not completely symmetric, so it is differently sized on both
sides of the crown, which itself is partially buried inside the case
flanks. Generally, it can be stated as more than 44mm wide, and thus is
on the upper end of the various Speedmaster variants. Water tightness
rating is down to 100 meters, indicating an increased effort to tighten
the unscrewed crown and pushers.
As
already stated, the two sapphire crystals are domed very highly: the
upper one to simulate the classic hesalite crystal of the hand-winding
Speedmaster Moonwatch, and the crystal on the back permits an unusual
view on the movement from the side - and does its best to camouflage the
watch’s massive thickness. Both crystals have an efficient
anti-reflective coating, the upper one on both sides, the rear one
inside only.
Neither
the substantial crown, nor the smooth and round pushers are screwed
down, but are well protected by the uniquely designed case flanks. If
the watch should be operated in very dusty or sandy conditions, the
wearer should take a bit extra-care, because the layout invites dirt
to sneak into the mechanics, causing scratches and rough operation.
III. Dial and hands:
Contrary
to the first impression, the glossy black dial is not lacquered, but
appears to be made from a black-coloured material. My first impulse
would be to call the dial „a bit empty“, but I assume this is owed to
the fact that I am used to the classical tri-compax dial layout.
Quickly, the beauty of the clean, uncluttered dial becomes apparent. A
huge advantage is the relatively large date window at 6. Together with
the bold font used for the date numbers, this permits an excellent
legibility of the date, what is certainly not a common feature even on
recently developed movements.
The
luminous hour markers are wider than on the previous Speedmasters,
resulting in a very clear night legibility. Halfway through the hour
markers, and touching the shorter minute markers, is a noticeable bevel
in the dial. All printing is crisp and sharp, no dust is spoiling the
excellent impression of a flawless dial.
The
hands follow the classic Speedmaster design: slim and straight,
equipped with sufficient luminous material, they offer excellent
contrast with the black dial. Thankfully, Omega did not jump the current
fashion train of employing the attractively bright white, but much less
potential C1 SuperLuminova, but stayed with the greenish, highly
effective C3 SL. This pays off at night, when the time is perfectly
legible even at dim ambient light, and after many hours of darkness.
What
appears to be a classic bi-compax chronograph layout at first sight,
reveals itself as a fully functional 12 hours measuring chronograph at a
closer glance: the subcounter at 3 contains two stacked hands, the
longer one counting 60 minutes, the shorter 12 hours. Together they are a
complete small watch dial. This is a feature that sets the new cal.
9300 movement apart from its competitors, which mostly show the elapsed
time on several separate subdials.
A
close inspection of the hands from the side reveals two things:
Firstly, the reason why the cal. 9300-watches are so high, while the
movement itself is even 0.3mm thinner than an ETA/Valjoux 7750, lies in
the stack of hands, notably the combined chronograph minutes and hours
hands. On normal chronographs, the lowest central hand, the hour hand,
only has to pass over one layer of subdial hands. But here, there are
two, even with ample space between each other, which facilitates the
assembly and reduces the chance of collisions in case that one hand
becomes slightly bent after a massive shock. As a consequence, the upper
crystal has to be placed at least a millimetre higher above the dial
than on a conventional chronograph.
The
second issue visible from the side is the slightly flawed finish of the
hands’ flanks. Apparently, it is very difficult to obtain painted hands
without paint spray or other imperfections from the suppliers. Compared
with other hands I have recently shown here, though, the Omega hands
are acceptable.
IV. Movement:
The
real raison d’être of this Speedmaster Professional is the new cal.
9300 movement. The direct predecessor, the cal. 3313-equipped
Speedmaster Professional Co-axial, was built only for some three or four
years. As it seems today, the production of the cal. 3313 has been
discontinued altogether, since only recently, Omega introduced its own
cal. 7750-offspring, the cal. 3330 with column wheel and co-axial
escapement.
A
lot has been written already on the new 9300 chronograph movement and
its qualities, so I will concentrate on the most important features
here: It is Omega’s first chronograph movement specifically designed for
the co-axial escapement from scratch, while the above-mentioned cal.
3313 originally was launched with a Swiss lever escapement. This
originality would have permitted the development team to chose a design
with a better view on the unique escapement and how it works. This
chance, unfortunately, has not been taken. As a consequence, the
escapement remains practically invisible, with the exception of the
black titanium balance and the silicium hairspring.
This
buttoned-up design is a leitmotif of the whole movement, negating what,
originally, made mechanical chronograph movements so attractive: the
bulk of wheels, levers and springs all working together and moving
whenever the chronograph function is activated - or stopped. Instead,
the Omega cal. 9300 covers everything with thick bridge plates, with
only small cutouts offering a glimpse on - something beneath. To add a
distant impression of the movement’s key components, bright red
engravings state „column wheel“, „barrel one“ and „barrel two“ - I
wonder why „escapement“ and „rotor“ are missing.
Some
other manufacturers, too, have launched chronograph movements that are
similarly secretive regarding their functionality. Apparently, this is
some kind of modern movement design fashion. Maybe it even offers one or
other advantage, regarding robustness, for example. However, I think
that the more „open“ designs, offering the watch enthusiasts a clear
view on the complicated cooperation of wheels, levers and springs
whenever the chronograph mechanism is activated, are much more
satisfactory and educative.
Most people looking at the movement
for the first time, will be literally flabbergasted because of the
spectacular decoration with wave-like, radial stripes and bright red
engravings. In my opinion, however, this is more cheap showiness than
real beauty. When compared with graphical design, I’d consider it
„shouting“, and it would nicely match a pimped American muscle car.
Well, I like muscle cars as any other man, but considering Omega’s
tradition in classic movement finish, the current movement generation
clearly marks a departure from this tradition; not for the better. This
impression is even enhanced by the movement’s „luxury“ version, with red
gold-coated rotor and balance bridge, dubbed cal. 9301.
I
am also surprised to see that the two large, serially installed
mainspring barrels do not result in a higher power reserve than 60
hours; a value not much higher than its cal. 3313 predecessor had with
but one barrel. I suspect the co-axial escapement consumes more energy
than a Swiss lever escapement would (the cal. 3303 movement, differing
from the 3313 only in its Swiss lever escapement, had three hours more
power reserve than the latter), and the modern cal. 9300 was designed
from the outset for a very even energy output to the escapement.
Aesthetic
considerations left aside, the quality of the finish is very good,
given that the movement parts are produced in large quantities and do
not receive a specific manual finish. The heat-blued screws have crisp
outlines, and are bare of any abuse. Only a few very slight scratches on
some bridges give evidence of the assembly process.
V. Accuracy:
A
watch movement’s primary purpose is to perform accurately and reliably,
and this is where the tested Omega really excels. Never since I conduct
accuracy tests with my watches (own and test specimen) I had a watch
running so accurately, in all positions, as the 9300 Speedmaster. Its
accuracy is simply marvellous. Just as a reminder: My test procedure is
not based on an electronic timing device, but I follow the system of the
Swiss COSC, the chronometric test institute. That means, I fully wind
the watch every 24 hours, and check its accuracy in every position. This
is done for two consecutive days in every position, to note the
variation within the same position. The main difference, compared with
the COSC, is that I do not test for heat, since I have no appliance able
to store a watch at constant 37 degrees Celsius. I do subject the watch
to cold (+5 degrees) in the dial up position for 24 hours, though.
Additionally, I check all six positions, while the COSC does only five,
and for watches with a power reserve of more than 48 hours, I also check
the accuracy on the second day after full winding, to see whether the
performance differs noticeably from the value on the first day, with the
mainspring at high tension. Finally, of course, the performance is
measured daily when the watch is worn 24/7 during normal everyday
activities for at least a week. Altogether, my accuracy test consumes
about a month.
I admit that this testing procedure has its own
weaknesses, since it does not permit an evaluation of the momentary
performance in a specific moment, but only benchmarks the average of
given 24 hours intervals. However, the widely acceptance and tradition
of the COSC test method offers a broad base for comparison and an
established standard.
To quote but the key accuracy values of the 9300 Speedmaster Professional (chronometer limits in brackets):
Average daily rate: +1.23 (?4/+6)
Mean variation in rates: 0.64 (2)
Greatest variation in rates in one position: 2 (5)
Difference between rates in H & V positions: 1.25 (?6/+8)
Largest difference between the average rate and the largest deviation in any position: 2.23 (10)
Additionally,
there is no noticeable difference between the values with chronograph
running (for 24 hours) and stopped, and the performance of the second
days running (the time from hour 24 to hour 48 without winding) differs
only one second from the values of the previous days, started with fully
wound mainspring.
This absolutely excellent performance is
reproduced on the wrist, when the watch is worn 24/7. The minimum daily
gain is zero, the maximum gain is 1.5 seconds, so after a week, I got an
average daily gain of a mere 0.57 seconds.
I consider this absolute
state of the art, regarding the accuracy of mechanical chronograph
movements. We have to keep in mind that this is not a hand-tweaked
competition chronometer, but a mass-produced watch, taken from the
standard series. All other watches on the market will have to be
measured against this cal. 9300 movement and the watches equipped with
it.
That
Omega delivers all their 9300 Speedmasters as officially certified COSC
chronometers is a nice touch. I am really curious to learn the failure
rate of the movements entered for the test. Somehow, I doubt that there
is any at all.
VI. Bracelet and clasp:
The
Speedmaster bracelet has seen only minor changes through the last
decades: the material has become a bit thicker, and the removal of
links, that in earlier times had to be accomplished by hammering out
pins, is now easier, since the links are attached by screws. The
attractive variation of slim and polished parts and wider links with
brushed finish has become a well-known design element of the Speedmaster
series, and I am glad to see Omega remaining loyal to it.
One aspect deserving improvement,
however, is the folding clasp. While it is solid, well-finished and easy
to operate, due to its two release pushers, it has still no integrated
fine-adjustment for the bracelet length, which should be standard with
any high-class timepiece today. Aside from that, the large, brushed
cover plate of the clasp is a veritable scratch magnet.
VII. Ergonomics:
When
actually using the 9300 Speedmaster Professional every day, the initial
fear, regarding the consequences of the watch’s height, is found to be
justified: whenever there is an edge or surface near the left wrist, the
wearer can be sure to hear its approach by a clear „dang!“. No door
frame, no table top is spared. Thank god the domed sapphire crystal is
highly scratch resistant. But be careful: sapphire is much more brittle
than hesalite, and a direct hit by a hard edge at the top of the crystal
might cause it to shatter. Hiding the Speedy under the shirt cuff is an
equally delicate task - one better does not even try it at all.
Leaving
aside the „height“ chapter, the large watch is surprisingly comfortable
to wear. While its overall weight is massive, at 180 grams, a large
share of this is in the bracelet, which balances the watch very well. I
suspect this positive distribution of mass will change to the worse with
a leather strap attached, but I have not tried this.
Besides its almost magical accuracy, the
cal. 9300’s major innovation is the combined chronograph counter at 3.
Unlike the classic way of interpreting the elapsed time, but reading
every subdial separately and adding the values in the head, the combined
subcounter is much more intuitive, since it resembles a small, separate
watch dial. This works perfectly, indeed. Only a very quick glance is
necessary to see that, for example, four hours and about seven minutes
have passed since the chronograph was activated. But, hold on: about?
Why not: exactly?
Contrary
to my expectation, the new subdial layout made the accurate reading of
the elapsed time much more difficult than the conventional Speedmaster
Professionals. At a quick glance, it is practically impossible to state
whether seven or eight minutes have passed. The reason for this is the
relatively small diameter of the chronograph subcounter, which now has
to accommodate 60 subdivisions, instead of only 30 on the conventional
30 minutes-counters. As a consequence, the available space for the
subdivisions along the subdial’s contour has been divided in half. Add
to this the fact that the cal. 9300 does not move the stop minute hand
in instantaneous jumps every full minute, but continuously, the
difficulties to achieve a clear, quick reading of the elapsed time are
comprehensible.
There
would have been more space available to make larger subdials, and it
seems that the new 1957 series of the Speedmaster benefits from a larger
radius.
Other than that, the legibility of the time in any
lighting condition is excellent. It is no wonder that the Speedmaster
Professional established the reference standard for a highly legible
chronograph already decades ago.
VIII. Conclusion:
To
be honest, the 9300 Speedmaster Professional causes conflicting
emotions in me: On the one hand, I am convinced it is the technically
most advanced Speedmaster ever made. Its new cal. 9300 movement takes
its performance to the extremes, I would compare it to the engine of a
formula one racing car. However, my experience review also shows this
performance has its price: the drawbacks are the ungainly proportions of
the watch, and the difficulty to make a quick and accurate reading of
the elapsed minutes on the combined subcounter. While the latter is
quickly comprehensible for anybody using the chronograph, the former is
based on my personal and individual feeling. A quick research among my
fellow watch enthusiasts shows that I am not alone with my opinion. And I
think that an anachronistic device like a mechanical chronograph, that
is a pure luxury accessory, should not exclusively focus on technical excellence
alone, but also satisfy the aesthetic needs of its owners, it
should simply be --- beautiful. Neither to the cal. 9300 movement in
detail nor to the watch as a whole I can attribute this without
reservations. Yet, whoever is a fan of technical peak performance, of
the very best currently available in this field, will become a happy
wearer of the 9300 Speedmaster Professional.
Copyright February 2014 - Marcus Hanke & PuristSPro.com - all rights reserved
PuristSPro Homepage | ThePuristS Homepage
Comments, suggestions, and corrections to this article are welcome. This message has been edited by Dr No on 2014-03-14 07:55:15
Comments:
view entire thread
Omega 9300 Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch chronograph in-depth review
By: Marcus Hanke : March 1st, 2014-15:37
Omega cal. 9300 Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch chronograph experience test by Marcus Hanke I can safely assume that the two most iconic wristwatch models in history are the Rolex Submariner and Omega’s famous „Moonwatch“, the Speedmaster Professional....
What a review marcus!
By: Mark in Paris : March 2nd, 2014-05:30
Thanks a lot for taking the time to share this. I have an old Mark IV, Lemania base engined, but I'm also really interested in what they did with the 9300. Very interesting technically speaking, though a bit thick. Cheers, Mark
An image can only . . .
By: Dr No : March 2nd, 2014-11:38
. . . hint; your review reveals . Glad to learn my experience with the Aqua Terra annual calendar was not atypical; that iteration of Omega's movement technology was similarly outstanding. Remarkable insights and acumen, as always. Thank you, Marcus. ...
I know a few people wearing the Speedy when snorkeling ...
By: Marcus Hanke : March 4th, 2014-03:07
The gaskets are very effective, and the threads to screw down crown and pushers are not really necessary. For the hand-winding original, screwing down the crown does not make much sense, and I think that any chronograph with screw down pushers fails to be...
First of all, thanks for this very detailled review, Marcus.
By: amanico : March 3rd, 2014-23:37
Obviosuly a technical beast. Now, the poit on which focused my attention is that " monocounter " chronograph. It is a very original way to tell the elapsed time, but, as you said, is it practical, legible? I guess that it will take some time to get used t...
I think nothing beats the legibility of a central 60 minutes counter ...
By: Marcus Hanke : March 4th, 2014-03:16
... since it offers such a large radius and space between the increments, which assures a highly accurate reading. Of course, the drag of such a massive hand on the the chronograph gear is substantially larger than that of a comparatively tiny hand on a s...
Wow! Incredible review!
By: pingtsai : March 4th, 2014-00:55
And amazing photos to accompany as well. I've always loved the Omega Speedmasters, they have a slightly vintage look to them but still modern at the same time, can be worn by a gentlemen in a suit and tie or athletic sportsman. The versatility in its look...
Thank you, Ping ...
By: Marcus Hanke : March 4th, 2014-05:06
... for your kind comments! I agree with you in that the Speedmaster Professional is a highly versatile watch. Especially with a leather strap attached, it can serve as a dress watch with more formal outfits as well. However, I would not attribute this to...
Count me as a fan of the chrono display counter.
By: MichaelC : March 4th, 2014-07:28
I really like the hours and minutes on the same subdial. Sure, it is different than I am used to, but I imagine when worn on a frequent basis it would become very natural to read. I give a lot of credit to Omega for utilizing this display. I was rather su...
I never stated I disliked the monocounter in general ...
By: Marcus Hanke : March 5th, 2014-06:21
... in the contrary, I am fan of it since I saw Patek's for the first time, and recall praising it when I saw it realized by the barely known manufacturer Pierre de Roche six years ago: My problem with the Speedmaster Professional's monocounter only is i...
Excellent review....
By: WHL : March 4th, 2014-16:56
Having first spent time with the Planet Ocean Chronograph, which I love in the show case but could never pull off on the wrist, the Speedy with 9300 is my ideal modern Omega chronograph. I find the size and proportions to be perfect ( de gustibus....), an...
Superb review
By: cazalea : March 6th, 2014-08:40
This really ticks all the boxes for me. You ferret out the changes (for better or worse) in an iconic design that we non-Omega experts might easily see as - "oh, you got a new one of the old moon watches?" Thanks for digging in deeply. Cazalea
A review can hardly be more detailed than this.
By: Ruckdee : March 12th, 2014-19:52
I am sure anyone sitting on the fence can be easily pushed off it by the views you present. Thank you for taking the time to share in written words your thoughts which will be of great value to potential buyers of this model. I think the majority of the i...
Column Wheel??
By: BDLJ : March 19th, 2014-17:57
I've searched around the internet, but have not been able to find an exploded drawing (or similar) of the 9300's column wheel and actuators. From what's visible in these images, it looks more like a cluster/stack of cams, rather than what 'traditionally' ...