The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998.
Informational Websites ChronoMaddox -- the legacy of Chuck Maddox OnTheDash -- vintage Heuer website Zowie -- Omega information
Discussion Forums ChronoMaddox Forum Heuer Forum Omega Forum
Counterfeit Watchers ChronoTools Forum ChronoTrader Forum

zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Opened July 1999, zOwie is the Internet's first and longest running discussion forum dedicated to Omega brand watches.

Feel free to discuss pricing and specific dealers. But 'for sale' postings, commercial solicitation and ads are not allowed. Full archive of all messages is accessible through options in the Search and Preferences features. Privacy, policies and administrivia are covered in the Terms of Use.

For the answer to the NUMBER #1 most frequently asked question here--for details or value of a specific older Omega watch you have--go to: Tell Me About My Omega. Learn more about How To Include Photos and HTML In Your Postings. To contact someone with a question not relevant to other readers of the forum, please click on their email address and contact them privately.

Actually, it is VERY correct! more :>
In Response To: No, that is incorrect! (more) ()

Derek:

I think we both have our signals crossed!

Valjoux at one time produced ebauches for the swiss brands, but at some point in the last decades, joined up with the company which eventually became today's ETA.

ETA does in fact produce the Valjoux 7750, 7751, etc., unless I am totally wrong, and I am fairly cartesian in my certainty on this point. (If you have any of the watch buyers guides which list the ebauches produced by ETA, N.Lemania, and F.Piguet, you will see the 7750 listed in the ETA sections).

Even the Spec sheet I received from Omega on the 1164 movement lists the base claiber as ETA 7750!

The watch I am talking about here is the Seamaster professional chronograph, not the bond...I know the 7750 is not the 2982a, just as the 1164 is not the 1109 or the 1120, but the ebauches are produced by ETA as well.

If you still think I am incorrect, I am very interested to hear the reason why?

(no offense taken, and hopefully none given?)

Confused but not dazed,

fondly,

Mus.

Current Position
Chronocentric and zOwie site design and contents (c) Copyright 1998-2005, Derek Ziglar; Copyright 2005-2008, Jeffrey M. Stein. All rights reserved. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the terms of use. CONTACT | TERMS OF USE | TRANSLATE