I hear many people say it is a better investment over a long haul just because of co-axial movment?
Have you actually caculate it?
IF SMP needs servicing every 5 years and with a cost of 45 pounds and co-axial needs servicing lets say every 10 years. So in 50 years time You would have spend (10x45)gbp450.00
(at the ex rate now it is roughly usd855) and you would have to send GBP45(the price might be even higher for a co-axial) which is (5x45 =GBP225=usd427.50. The price difference between an SMP and co-axial is lets say usd1239 and aq is usd 1890. a Difference of usd650.
So after 50 years the total of SMP would be 1239+855=usd2094 and AQ is 1890+427.5=usd2319
So by that calculation even after 50 years of constant use and assume no parts need to repair just to maintain the watch alone the SMP is still cheaper than AQ and probably to break even for the two it needs a total of 70 years instead of 50. Another 70 years I would be dead so not really much of a point is it? And even for co-axial movmement it is part of the movement and not the whole mechanical part of the movement. Which means that other parts of the watch has to be repaired just as much as the SMP. EG the rubber for water resistance and other parts as well. So I don't really see AQ being cheaper than SMP after a long run.
And we are not taking into account by another 20 years we would have bought many other watches and leaving the SMP or AQ we buy now sitting in a box which doesn't even need repairs.
So on the basises of saving money in the long run the co-axial is moot because it doesn't.
I would by an co-axial because it is a marvel of new tech and also a testment of how bold and brave omega is by trying out different tech to give us a better watch. However, I will not recommend this just because it will save someone money because it doesn't.
