zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

more thoughts and agreements

Posted By: georges zaslavsky

Date: 6/22/06 16:41 GMT

In Response To:
Doubt the Co-Ax to blame, it's probably the c.3313 (Chicagoland Chuck Maddox)

1)Seeing where this is a c.33xx Fredric Piguet based chronograph movement, I am not in the least surprised at the repeated failures or the lack of haste on Omega's reponse to the situation to make you whole again.

Me too but this is what happens when a prestigious firms becomes an assembleur and lacks the quality control it used to have in the past.

Sorry Georges... I have to disagree with you on this point.

You're drawing a cause (Omega being an "assembleur" and not an "in-house" manufacturer) and effect (repeated failures of this movement/quality control) that I can't agree with.

Omega has not been a manufacturer of it's mechanical chronograph movements for probably 60 or 70 years. Lemania, Valjoux and ETA/DD movements (which Omega also assembles, not manufacters) haven't had the rash of failure reports that the Piguet movements have.

I would state that Omega's not being a manufacture of it's own movements is not a siginificant factor in this situation.

At least Rolex took in consideration the problems on their early daytos with the 4130 and eliminated them definitively

Rolex handled the roll out of the Daytona in a very different manner than Omega. In a manner which Omega would be wise to emulate, as it has proven to be a sucessful procedure and product for Rolex.

2) However, the fault with the watch is most likely not with the Co-Axial part of the movement, but rather the c.33xx based movement's design or a lack of quality control on either F. Piguet or Omega's part.

As you described it before it was mainly a teething problem but seeing how problems are repetitive, I would think it is both the design and the lack of quality control

I suspect it is a complex problem and there are many factors to consider when determining cause. I suspect the problem is complecated that it may well be both, however, if it were only or mainly a QC problem, I'd think that'd be overcome by now with replacing those QC inspectors if nothing else

3)The c.33xx's have an abysimal reputation for durability and reliability and Omega's attempts to retrofit revised parts to address the situation have been less than effective in a number of cases,unfortunately like yours.

I should probably state clearly that "abysimal" is my opinion of the situation, other opinions vary. But that the c.33xx's have a less than stellar reputation for durability and reliability is known.

The 33xx was never a heavy duty chrono calibre and it is not something to wear under rough use

The c.33xx's certainly haven't proven to be so thus far.

also the management of the Omega technical department didn't take those problems seriously enough to solve them definitively.

That these problems are still occuring regularly (although not as frequently as at first) still, some five years after the movements introduction to the market doesn't exactly polish Omega's reputation.

4) It is not an acceptable situation that Omega seems to be willing to let it's customers hang on the line waiting months and months for resolution of such situations when their watches paid for by hard earned cash sit in a pile of parts on some watchmakers bench in Switzerland for months and months. Omega should offer you a complete and total refund, or a replacement with a completely brand new and tested watch of the identical model which you purchased with a new, full and complete warrantee from the date of your receipt.

Frankly, I'd recommend a cash refund and not buying anything with a c.33xx movement in it. But that's just me.

Omega is managed by people believing in marketing hype rather than by a true customer service.

I'm sure there are people who feel differently, Georges, but they don't seem to have enough power to cause effective change/improvements in the situation.

The restorations and service on watches are sometimes done on a such amateurish way that there is enough to be angry

I've only had one troubled experience with Omega (US - Lancaster), fortunatly it was on a Quartz Seamaster Chronograph that I wasn't particularly attached too, so I didn't get exceptionally upset.

and sad at the same time.Omega customer service is not what it used to be. Hayek didn't manage Omega in the best way.

I suppose that we still owe Mr. Hayek proper respect for saving as much of the Swiss watch industry has he had. But I'd much rather have the Omega of 5+ years ago than the Omega of the past 5 years.

Avoiding the 33x is the solution I agree.

I call it prudent waiting and watching, but...

5)If it says c.33xx on the box, leave it on the dealer's shelf and move on. That's my advice...

The truth couldn't be told better and I do agree with you

You see, G! We don't always disagree! [nods in your direction]

6)Here is a link to Omega's Customer Service - Contact Us page. I'd send them a very direct and pointy letter telling them that you are sick of waiting for their hangar queen of a watch, and you would like a full and complete refund so you may purchase a watch that won't be spending all but three weeks of it's first six months of life on a watchmakers repair bench.If that doesn't work, I'd recommend searching for the name/email address of the President of Omega and Swatch Group and send them a letter detailing your displeasure at the reliability of their watches. That should provoke some action.

I agree it is scandalous that nothing has been done to fix the watch. The Omega president is Stefen Uhrquart

Note that it's typically best to start with the least drastic path first and ramp up as needed. For once you've lost your cool, you can't take that back.

7)I don't envy you. However, it is widely known fact that the c.33xx is a troubled movement. Like Global Thermonuclear War... The only winning move with the c.33xx is not to play Omega's game.

I couldn't agree more with that statement ;)

Suffice it to say, Opinions vary Georges!

regards and have a nice day

Likewise and you too!

georges

-- Chuck