The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
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. |
Good question looking at the amount that Omega are having to put into it I would say Rolex know what the best is for them. If you look at the history of Rolex it started with taking the best from the watch movement market doing some adjustments then calling it Rolex then later Rolex produced it's own version. the modern example of this is the Daytona which was first a Valjoux movement then a Zenith movement now Rolex have produced it's own. Omega on the other hand, have kept faith in what works when you see the age of the 1120(2892). I think if Omega makes the escapement very reliable we will see if not all at least a fair few take up on it. You could ask the question why do Omega not use a free spring over-coiled balance like Rolex this would improve the time keeping again. I would guess that Daniels own work is as Rolex.
Richard
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 |