zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

: 1)Those are your own personal observations, it
: hasn't been verified by someone else and
: neither confirmed by a watchmaker or by
: Omega, so those are just claims not facts.

At least I provided my own observations (facts), which happens to coincide with Orbita Database. If you can get official answers from Omega that would be great.

: 3)You think but you are not sure.The movement
: pics were posted by FrankN on tz in 2003 and
: I remember of it very well that is for sure.
: Please see the link
: http://213.237.13.198/nik/gallery/pictorial/index2_html
This is pointless. I downloaded 2 pictures from a Japanese website, and photoshopped them. They have nothing to do with FrankN's pictures. I have the originals, photoshop files (not .jpg), and it's not too hard for me dig out the original webe source. Let's not waste bandwith on this. That French page is using a picture that was photoshopped by myself.

: 4)How many watches have you serviced ? How many
: years have you been into repairing watches?
: Are you a wostep watchmaker?
No. My so called skills in "watchmaking" are limited to resizing bracelets, sometimes regulate an ETA, changing batteries. The most challenging work I've done is disassemble a quartz watch, solder a broken coil.

Have you? Are you? I haven't been reading much of your posts, except those recent Rolex superior claims.

: Someone with experience know what he is talking
: about because he has been long enough into
: watchmaking and has more than enough proofs
: to back up his statements.
Many people can service a watch, but only very few can be called "watchmaker". Just like there are many mechanics, but there are only a few "auto-makers". Long enough experience doesn't automatically mean he is qualified, unless he is a true watchmaker who designs and makes watch movements, who understands the trade-offs of different engineering decisions. Otherwise, he is only qualified to say which brand/movement HE is confortable of servicing.

: The casio is a mass produced quartz watch so it
: is very nonsencical to compare a cheap watch
: to a luxury watch.
I guess you missed my point in mentioning CASIO. My point was: when comparing products, we need to consider many aspects, in stead of just hONE. If we only consider the time keeping performance, yes, Casio is far superior than a Rolex. But that's not my point.

The eta 2892-a2 according
: to eta is an luxury range movement (it cost
: 175$ but is a very averagely finished
: movement see pic).
I mentioned a quality ETA 2892-A2, not the unfinished version, they come with several different grades. In the picture you refer to, only the rotor was decorated, but nothing else (I call it Tissot level finish). There are a lot of others have rotor/bridges/main plate very well finished, such as Omega, RGM......

: The eta 2892a2 is a thin movement and it
: hasn't got the robustness of a rolex 3035,
: 3135 and even the robustness of an older
: 100% inhouse omega movement cal 1020.

I guess you still don't get my point:engineering is often about trade-offs There is NO absolutely superior engineering solutions. If there is such a solution, believe me, every manufacture will use it, people are not stupid. Engineers often have enough reasons to choose one solution over another.

Yes, generally speaking, bulkier movements have better robustness, but you have to find a middle ground (trade-offs). Have you noticed that you cannot build a slim profile watch using 3135, but you find many very classy designs using ETA 2892?
An eta
: will never beat in accuracy a rolex because
: it hasn't got such things as microstella
: balance wheel and integrated balance bridge
: and cock. Not memntionning that rolex are
: far easier to service than etas http://people.timezone.com/mdisher/andrewb/3135/3135_1.htm
: (in that link you will find explained why
: rolex movements are easier too service than
: etas and why they are better)
Again, you are making this type very biased claims. "An eta will never beat in accuracy a rolex ", in reality, well adjusted ETA have 0 problem to reach chronometer accuracy. How much better is Rolex keeping time? One benefit of free sprung balance wheel is the watch will not be out of adjustment in the LONG RUN. Aren't we supposed to service a watch every 5 years (including Rolex)?

From my very limited experiences, when an old ETA movement is out of adjustment, more often than not, it needs COA, a simple regulation won't do any good. I doubt "microstella balance" can make a big difference within a 5yr time frame.

Actually, if a relatively new watch is out of adjustment, ETA's regulator is much simpler to adjust (speaking of easier to service, even by an hobbiest). Again, another trade-off

: 5)The 2500 has been introduced in 2000 and it
: hasn't made its proofs long enough to be
: considered as a reference.
No argument, but can use 1120 as references.

About the 1120,
: there were some people who had their
: seamaster 300 profesional chronometer that
: stopped to work after some month
Could be, but very few. I've been on TZ in the last couple of years, don't ring a bell.

and yet you
: dare to compare these movement with the
: 3135? ...
dare is that the word? I guess I'm not the only one. Here is from an ETA 2892 review:"So how does it compare to the competition? There are some movements that match it in terms of accuracy and reliability, but in my humble opinion, none exceed it. The Rolex 3035 and 3135 match it toe to toe. But they are a lot thicker and considerably more expensive too. The PPs, while being very pretty to look at, do not match it for accuracy and are more delicate as far as reliability is concerned. Of course they’re also slightly thinner, so that does put them at a disadvantage. The JLC 889/2 does match it for accuracy, but is also too delicate to give it any competition in the reliability department. The main reason for the latter is its very weak mainspring. The whole design, while being well thought out and superbly executed, relies too much on everything being just perfect. It is just thrown out of wack too easily, when even minor things go out of adjustment. I don’t have too much experience on the Blancpain/Piguet movements. But from the few that have crossed my bench, they don’t seem to deliver the same accuracy that the 2892 has no trouble delivering. Let me know if I’ve left any of your favorite movements out, and I’ll gladly comment on them.
"
Sure, dare is the word.

: You are wrong again about what concerns finish,
: please see links ...

Well, that's because we have different standards in judging movement finishes. For me, movements from TRUE highend brands like PP, AP, BP, VC... are simply beautiful (thus I consider that's the standard of finish). You can disagree with me, but to me, Omega 1120, 2500 finished better than Rolex 3135; Omega 3303 has better finish than 4130.

: Rolex have always been superior to its
: competitors (excluse the older rolex 727 and
: 722 calibers)because Rolex has always
: prefered a sturdy, robust,ultra reliable and
: very accurate movement to a too thin
: movement with a fragile winding system.
always is the other word? From my impression of some horological history, that does not seem to be true. I know to some Rolex is GOD, but to me, they are just another watch. I repect the art in watchmaking. I think Seiko's lowly 7S26 is very amazing too (superior in some aspects).

: 6)Rolex was the first in the world to
.......................................
Thanks for educating me with Rolex history. I don't even care how both Rolex and Omega's marketing strategies. Both are making very good watches.

: reliable over something fashionable and
: using non inhouse or very average quality
: parts.
IMHO, non-inhouse doesn't mean poor quality. More often than not, A burger at McDonalds is tastes better than a home made (for me that's the case). inhouse only means exclusiveness, nothing else. To collectors, inhouse means something. For average joe, means nothing.

: 8)You got it false again so let me remind the
: story of rolex chronograph movements,
: because you don't know rolex chrono movement
: story very well. ....
Thanks again for the education. Maybe I mis-read your previous post, I think Rolex 4130 is a new calibre, instead of a modified EP.

: a)False. Older in house omega movements had
: sweep seconds even those including the 19800
: and 18000 bph rate. The older vintage omega
: inhouse movements were of far better quality
: tahn teh eta based ones.
Interesting. I couldn't find many many automatics that is not 28.8K bps. Old means modern?

: b) You probably don't know that from 1939 till
: 1983 omega was only using jeweled pivot
: rotors like rolex in their movements. I bet
: you probably never interested yourself to
: vintage omegas.The eta 2824 and even the
: 2892 were not considered references in their
: time. The references I heard most of when it
: comes to Omega inhouse self winding calibres
: are: 33x-35x,50x, 55x,56x,75x, 100x, 101x
: and 102x and not the eta based ones.
: Let's make a comparison of an omega eta based
: calibre and an inhouse vintage one
Thanks. Frankly, the copper plated vintage Omega movement is rather plain to me. After 40 years, the whole Swiss industry still cannot produce things better than what they did 40 years ago? Technology has advanced A LOT: machinary, material, CAD.... I always think if something is that good, they will keep making it. No?

: 9) Because I don't give facts? hahaha. Looks
: like you don't know me well enough,ask to
: the others regulars what they think about my
: posts and you will see.
Frankly, I only read several of your recent posts. My impression is that you love Rolex a lot, so much so you may have forgot the big picture. Rolexes are OK, but superior? come on. In order to make a claim like that, you need something more than "they used xxxx, thus xxxx".

Rolex vs Omega is an old topic. Both actually have a lot in common: mass produced, quality high end watch. Are they superior to Seiko? Considering Seiko can make an automatic calibre so cheap, that it can fit into a $30 watch, quite amazing, isn't it? It's "in-house" too.

Continue?