zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

The following are citations of Walt Odets, a writer on many horology topics on www.timezone.com, on some quality issues he experienced in reviewing/disassembling a $2,500 Rolex Explorer watch.

I thinkg this is both enlighting and scary at the same time. Then I see that my SMP is being compared to Rolex in many regards. Well, all things considered, let's hope it doesn't compare too much...

Please give me the courtasy of your thoughts on this.

Regards,

Claude

"The timer performance of this caliber 3000 is noteworthy not only for the excellent figures but for the fact that such figures are possible from a movement in the poor condition that this movement was in. The caliber 3000 is obviously engineered for minimum parts count, easy assembly, and economy of manufacture and service. It is an extremely simple movement by design and I imagine that it could be produced in a workman-like way at a cost equal to or below that of some of the most inexpensive automatic movements in current production. As the simplicity of the movement also makes--or ought to make--some contribution to reliability and reduced routine service costs, there is certainly nothing wrong with such a design in an appropriately priced wristwatch. The price of this watch--and the Rolex reputation--left me entirely unprepared for the number of shortcuts that had been taken in the actual production of this movement."

"...Not only are the holes unchamfered, but machining debris remained attached to the edge of hole. As a result, when the jewels were inserted in the holes, they pushed debris in front of them, some of which later fell onto the train wheel bridge below, and the wheel pivots located there; some debris also remained on top of the winding jewels."

"As it stands, this caliber 3000 is the most crudely finished watch movement that I have ever personally examined; and I include in that observation, a number of movements in extremely inexpensive watches."

"I think it would be difficult to find another current production watch, at any price over a few hundred dollars, as deficient in basic workmanship of the mechanicals as the Explorer."

"There are too many defects in this watch to support such an explanation. A mass-produced product with multiple defects represents, in itself, a form of statistical sampling of the total pool of parts and manufacturing operations and procedures."

"Clearly, the Oyster Perpetual Explorer is not a watch that I could recommend. The cost-efficient engineering of the movement is not remotely reflected in its price; and the extreme ease of service is not reflected in routine service costs provided by the manufacturer. The watch represents an extremely poor value if purchased solely to provide accurate and reliable timekeeping. And it is of no horological interest whatsoever. The contrast between the relatively good external appearance of the watch and the internal appearance is absolutely unparalled in my experience. I cannot think of another consumer product in which the gulf between the publicly perceived quality and the reality I saw is as broad as with the Explorer."