- Joined
- Jul 16, 2014
- Messages
- 4,474
I have been wanting an Omega Speedmaster "Moonwatch" for many years and always put other pieces before it either because they were more easily reachable or I've been distracted by other shiny objects. Also, there is a heavy debate among tymepiece hobbyists between the 3570.50 (1981 movement) and the 3573.50 (1983 movement). Even Watchjac and I exchanged our reasons for wanting our respective versions. Neither Moonwatch is identical to those worn by Apollo astronauts. However, it would be fair to say that the 3570.50 is more faithful to its history than the 3573.50. The 3570.50 has a solid caseback housing the mechanical chrono movement without polish, Côte de Geneve or other fancy accents because it isn't viewable, absent removing the caseback. It also has a hesalite (plastic) crystal as did the original versions. However, the 3573.50 has what has come to be colloquially known as the "sapphire sandwich". This version has a sapphire domed crystal, sapphire exhibition caseback, as well as accented and polished 1983 mechanical chrono movement. The sapphire crystal has a "milky" white ring at its base due to the fact that it is raised from its base and is sapphire. This is often a reported turnoff for collectors, but not for me. The hesalite crystal, admittedly, has a "warmer" look. The sapphire is also considerably more expensive than the hesalite version. Also, the 3573.50 states that the Moonwatch was the "first and only" watch on the moon. It is well-known that some astronauts took their own watches to the moon and, I believe the Bulova watch was there too. So, another turnoff for collectors is the inaccurate term "only" on the caseback. Maybe it will be worth more because of it, like a minting imperfection for a coin, who knows? Despite its lack of as much fidelity to the original as the 3570.50, I chose the 3573.50 mostly because I am really into the movements and I could not accept not viewing the only mechanical manual chrono in my collection. Also, no one would reasonably argue that the watch isn't a "Moonwatch". I hope you enjoy the photos below.
Last edited: