zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

1) being honest and direct is the best thing to do even if we often disagree

I don't believe you've been dishonest, I don't think you feel I have been dishonest either.

I also don't believe that I used the term honest or dishonest in my post. So it is not germane to the topic at hand.

As for being direct, there is a difference between being doing so in a polite way and opening a can of worms.

2)Those quality control issues were unexisting before hayek took control of Omega and merged the SSIH and the ASUAG to form the Swatch Group

and my point is Those quality control issues were unexisting up until about 2000 excepting the appaling state of the USA service network), a good 15 to 20 years after Omega ceased production of their own movements and a good 13-15 years after the formation of Swatch Group.

Omega went a good solid 13-15 years without these problems with Hayek at the helm of Swatch, and a good 15 to 20 years after the ceasation of Omega producing their own movements so it would seem to me that the problems and those events have very VERY little or NO correlation.

Since they have little or more likely no correlation, there is little to no reason to introduce them into consideration.

and also appeared with revolutionnary new movements like the 33xx and 36xx.

Actually the first problems started with the first of the Seamaster GMT's which had a troubled start... This happened prior to the c.33xx (and the newer c. 1866 issues) and were perhaps the first symptoms of what was to come with the c.33xx's.

The fact is that those movements aren't modified by Omega themselves but by Piguet for Omega in this case isn't the best thing.

Unfortunately, I don't see any reason to belive that Omega could do the modifications any better than Piguet has. I am unconvinced that Omega would necessarily do a better job.

Agreed for teh rest part on the coax.

Ok, then we cqan remove that from contention/discussion at this time.

3)The thing is that by trying to beat Rolex rather than solving issues on movements or improving their after sales-customer service Omega didn't pay attention to those and rather focused itself to launch new models with defective movements with the 33xx or 36xx

Let's clarify something here before we go on any further. 1) the first c.36xx movement, is the c.3600, which is a 7750 base movement. There haven't been any problems reported with that watch:

2) I haven't heard of any issues, thus far, with any of the newer c.36xx movements which are in fact based on the c.33xx's, unless that Constellation which was reported on my blog last month sported one of the newer c. 36xx movements, and I don't believe it did.

So there is NO need to introduce prematurely the c. 36xx's into the spotlight of concern. So why do it?

as well as not provide to Omega New Jersey a qualified and experimented personnel when it comes to service and repair watches not some n00bs or unqualified personnel.

and this brings up a point that I didn't include in my previous post due to it's length and, well, it was getting late.

Frank N. mentioned the following concerns as what he feels is the larger (iceberg sized) problem behind the issues we are talking about. An extreme shortage of personnel who have the type of expertise, knowledge and qualifications to handle the tasks at hand:
quality assurance, product testing, quality control, product repair and service. The problem is much more acute in the USA than in Europe and especially Switzerland, but this is another fallout of the double Japanese/Quartz onslaught of the 1970's and 1980's. While many people wear mechanicals, probably much more than 10 or even 15 years ago, the vast majority of people wear Quartz watches today. As a result finding a good watchmaker or good watch technicians is very difficult.

I can't say that RSC in Dallas or NY is great but Rolex makes very durable and very accurate movements.

You can't tell that to Matthew J and not get into a discussion...

4)Why would I risk money on something that was never proven or tested in real conditions over the years for then having returning constantly for repairs? To please the firm maybe? No way. A firm has to be responsible for what it says and back up its claims before saying that thing is that great when it is not.

There is the old saw about car salesmen...

‘You know how to tell when a car salesman is lying to you??? It's really easy... Their lips move!’

Marketeer's use hyperbole and "we're the best" with little regard. In fact in the US, courts have ruled that companies are entitled to say their products are the best, because in their opinions they probably are or they wouldn't be in business otherwise.

The wise consumer takes all marketing claims with a grain of salt.

5)The 2892-a2 is one of the thinnest movements of its category, it was based on the eterna matic 3000 built in1975. In the 70's and even in the early 80's, it was never regarded as a high grade movement and it was never able to compete with Omega cal 1000, 1010, 1020 (all fast beat inhouse Omega movements) and Rolex 3035 in terms of quality, finish and reliability. I was told that by several watchmakers not by one.

And again as I pointed out the Omega c.1000,1010, 1020, et all are dead discontinued movements that I doubt we'll ever see be brought back into production.

The Rolex 3035, is a movement which Omega, especially with their agressive stance towards Rolex recently, has no chance of gaining access to.

Bringing them into the conversation doesn't add anything. I personally consider the Ford 427 cross-bolt main, side oiler to be the best engine Ford ever produced, I consider the 351 Cleveland to be the second best engine Ford ever produced. Neither has been offered by Ford in new vehicles in 30 years and Ford isn't about to bring either one back.

So why confuse the issue? ... with tangents that aren't useful or going to get us anywhere? Other than for you to vent, yet again, about something that was/is necessitated by the market.

When many firms stopped to manufacture their own movements they chose that movement as an economic alternative for having cosc graded watches, they chose the eta 2892-2 for this task.

Yes, because if they went with the available and economically viaable ETA 2892 they could continue to be survive to do business, if they continued with their own movements their firm would die.

If I go into detail while we are it,

Is it pertenent to the topic at hand? Why Omega is having problems with getting their stories straight?

I am not certain it is. Which is one of my major concerns.

the ball bearing winding system of the 2892-2 is far less robust than the jeweled pivot winding system found in the rolex or in the vintage omega movements. You also didn't mention the precision regulating of the Eta 2892-2 which is the etachron, is not the best regulating and adjusting precision system compared to a microstella or a triovis regulation precision system. I never said the 2892-2 was bad simply that it wasn't something excellent.

And producing something that was excellent with all of the features would require Omega (And all of the other firms who currently use the 2892) would cost them how much in Swiss Franc's Georges? At how much additional research, employee overhead, and management to ensure quality control?

Does Omega, with it's recent track record (I trust I need not elaborate further on it's recent track record) really have the effective management, research, product testing and quality assurance/control structures in place to either a) start their own movement from scratch or b) provide their own "in-house" modifications such as you advocate (microstella or a triovis regulation precision system)?

I really don't think that Omega, with it's current organizational structure and management are up to that. Do you?

6)Disagree, Omega started its handwound movements in the first 1890's if not before.

Here is my quote from the previous message:

6)First off, Omega was never a 100% manufacturer. At least not since the 1930's or 1940's...

Georges? is 1890 happen before 1930? Before 1940?

Then why do you even mention that? I stated that!

Omega never subcontracted its handwound or selfwinding movements prior to 1984, all of those were strictly inhouse movements.

Except for nearly every (if not every) chronograph movement, handwound, selfwinding, and Tunning fork watch Omega produced aside from Quartz models.

The chronographs are another chapter.

Again my quote:

Omega has never (with the possible exception of the LCD Quartz models of the late 1970's and 1980's and prior to the 1940's) made any of it's chronographs as a 100% manufacture .

So here we are, you've gone three sentences after saying "6)Disagree," where you agree with me or are incorrect.

It doesn't get us anywhere.

Omega was working with Lemania in the early 20's and merged with Tissot and Lemania to form the SSIH in 1932,

A precursor to they current sWatch Group.

Omega sold Lemania to Heuer in 1984. Heuer sold Lemania in 1989 to a saudi fund company

Saudi investment in and involvement with Heuer occured in 1984-1985 timeframe, not 1989. This co-indided with the TAG-Heuer name.

who resold the Lemania Lugrin watch company to Breguet in 1999.

I am uncertain of the details of Lemania's ownership between about 1986 or so and 1999, so I won't agree or disagree with you as I'm not in a position to do so.

But I'm not sure it's relevent to the topic of Co-Axial Service Intervals... Is it Georges? If it's not it is unrelated trivia to the topic at hand is it not?

Omega was always closely associated to the name Lemania,

Even when they were owned by the competition (Heuer). It's a shame that TAG-Heuer didn't hold on to Lemania... We might still see production of the 5100 today instead of Messers Hayek sitting on the tooling with their fleshy posteriors.

But that comment too is not relevent to the topic of Co-Axial Service Intervals too!

Georges, if you want to talk about Omega dropping their own movement production and discuss ETA's post a new thread with that as the stated subject. If people want to read your post or discuss that topic they can reply. Posting such poorly related or unrelated topics within threads on other topics makes it seems you are trying to hijack those threads to those same tired topics. Georges, we know how you feel on those topics, and as I've pointed out their relationship to the topic of this thread is (or at least near) non-existant.

Give it a rest! Already! I'm growing very weary of repeatedly explaining to people why such behaviour is being tolerated here.

Lemania has played an enormous role to build the reputation of Omega in terms of Chronopraphs.

In addition to all of those handwoundand selfwinding movements they made for Omega.

Good comparison with the automobile chuck, you see some of tehse old cars still going and going strong as compared to the new cars who use more plastic more electronics and who aren't more solid or more reliable.

some are going strong, but many many are rusting in salvage yards or have been melted down to recycle the steel for use in the newer cars.

Also, the old cars can't adequately meet the demands of today's consumers, governmental safety, environmental and economy regulations and they aren't feasableable in today's marketplace. "Retro" muscle cars, with the same more plastic more electronics techniques of non-Retro cars not withstanding.

I would rather have a lincoln town car from the mid 70's with a 460ci or a 1970 cadillac eldorado with a 500ci engine than any modern car.

What do you drive then Georges? Because cars like those you mention are often listed on eBay (I know of your distain for eBay too). If you're driving one, great! If your are not, then why not? They can be purchased... You could have them transported to where you live, pay for the modifications necessary for them to be drivable in your locale, and pay for the upkeep and fuel to power it...

If you're not driving one, then it's probably because it doesn't make sense to go through all that work to drive one in today's environment.

Which is exactly my point with regards as to why Omega is not making their own movements currently. IT doesn't make sense in today's marketplace for them to do so. Yes, Omega could find the tooling (if they retained it and not destroyed it) and resume production, but they would have to price watches with those old movements a couple of tiers above their current market segment to be able to make a profit on selling one of them. And that maket just isn't that big and is filled with the JLC, Blancpain, Bruguet and AP Tier of firms already.

Both are easy to fix engines and very reliable too,

And back in the day, most people bought new cars every 3 years or after 70,000 to 80,000 miles because they were plain and simple wore out. My last car I drove for nearly 9 years had 84,000 miles on it and with a new fresh air vent, battery and tail pipe would have been solid for another 5 years or 80,000 miles, I know it with every fibre of my existance. Whoever buys my old Explorer is getting a car with a hell of a lot of life left in her.

I am not also mentionning than the turbo hydramatic 400 or the lincoln twin dual range (ford c6) are heavy duty gear boxes made to last a lifetime.

Which were good solid automatic transmissions. But neither the engine nor the transmission were necessarily what wore out on cars of this era... It was everything else that plain and simple wore out: the bodies rusted to dust, the suspension was washing out, the steering was dangerous etc.

I love the muscle car era as much as most people who are interested in the cars of that era. But the reality is that we ask so much more of today's cars in terms of performance, economy, ecology, reliability and durability, convenience and for the most part most cars do a admirable job of fulfilling those needs. Probably better than the muscle car era models did in their epoch.

Perhaps in the past there weren't internet,instant messaging and other things but people were more paying attention to their customers and there was a real human contact something which is far rarer than before.

Considering that supposedly the world is becoming a "Service Economy", it's amazing how bad service is in most instances.

7) ok no disagreement

Oh good!

8) cadillac makes its own engine the northstar since 1991 still considered as one of the very best engines produced in the world, chevy makes the ls7 also one of the best engines made in the world and also cadillac is planning to make its own v12.chrysler relaunched it so called hemi which isn't hemi but a motor with polyspherical heads.

And yet none of those engines are 100% manufactured by Cadilac or Chevy or Chrysler either. None of those firms make Spark Plugs in their own factories, and I would daresay that a number of components are made by other GM subsidiaries, just as Omega uses parts or prefabricated sub-assemblies made by Swatch.

The other firms subcontract we agree.

And so do the three "C"'s you mentioned above.

9)You also didn't mention the Piguet 1150, a movement of almost the same dimensions than the 2892-2 introduced in 1988 with a 72 and also 100 power reserve capacity found in Blancpains and Breguet which is also found in the Omega Cosmic moonphase reedition model. Just this small parenthesis while we are talking about movements.

Ok, let's talk about the Piguet and the Cosmic Moonphase reedition... What's the MSRP on that Georges? Omega clearly has access to that movement, why doesn't Omega tell Swatch or Piguet to start sending them Piguet 1150's so they can replace their ETA 2892 models?

Could it be because Piguet doesn't have the capacity to manufacture the vast number of movements Omega needs? Or perhaps the cost is so high that Omega couldn't meet the cost point necessary to be competitiove with their cometitors?

What do you think is the reason why Omega doesn't drop the 2892 in favor of the 1150?

10)I have nothing agaisnt valjoux so you are wrong again.

You didn't mention them. Valjoux made far better movements than ETA/DuBois-Depraz didn't they? After all, they were good enough for Rolex to use in their Cosmographs and Daytonas for something like 30 plus years...

I just don't like the finish

ok, but the Valjoux isn't any better than ,,movements made by subcontactors,, like ETA/Dubois-Depraz?

and the fact that the spare parts are a pain in the ass to find are also braking me to buy one valjoux 72.

The biggest problem I've had with parts thus far with one of my Valjoux 72x powered watch was finding a case clamp for my Glycine GMT. My watchmakers have been able to keep my Valjoux 72's operational within reasonable lead times otherwise. And a case clamp really isn't a movement part.

But if parts are a problem, find a cheap valjoux 23 or 72 on eBay to loot for parts.

The venus 178 and the excelsior park movements are something I appreciate but spare parts are rare if non existant it makes restoration costs and service costs much higher.

Thus Gallet's 100% manufacture Excelsior Park Movement powered watches are no panacea as I stated.

The 7750 isn't a bad movement but I find it less mooth to activate as compared to the 5100 or the 1040

However, your experience with using them has been limited to fleeting encounters in Jewelry shops with a few examples. You have no "real-world experience" wearing or useing them, unless I'm missing something.

That's ok, I have no experience using the new Rolex movement (aside from fleeting Jewelry store encounters) nor the AP,Bruget, Blancpain, JLC tier of chronographs either.

it also has less power reserve plus

not a significantly different amount, and if one is wearing the watch regularly the difference shouldn't be a concern.

I am not a fan of the 7750 dial configuration.

The 7750's layout is similar to the 5100 in terms of subdial position and superior to the 1040/1's superimposed arangement which is (in my opinion) cluttered and unappealingly unsysmetrical in nearly every way

11) no disagreement here

11)It's my believe that many of these problems as well as the Quality Control, Communications and Customer Support issues might possibly be more mangagerial in nature and also due to the pressure being applied to move Omega into a confrontation with Rolex.

Then let's not inject the fact that Omega discontinued production of their own movements 20-25 years ago into the discussion of the confusion over Co-Axial servicing intervals at Omega.

For that is off topic and besides the point! Stay on topic and leave the unrelated rhetoric for threads dealing with Omega's older movements!

12) no disagreement here

12)If one was to invest $2,000 in a Speedmaster Mark IV or Speedmaster 125 in minty condition and it will have to be serviced in less than years too! And those are movement's you like!

I should have said should expect a Speedmaster Mark IV or Speedmaster 125 to need to be serviced in 3-5 years.

13)I know some people who never serviced their subs since ten years or their old connies with cal 1011 and the fact is taht they still work perfect. It does confirm that some movements need too much tlc.

The Co-Axial's have only been available since 2000 or 2001, so I don't know anyone who's owned a Co-Axial for 10 years. Do you Georges? I suspect not.

So it's too early to say with the Co-Axial's isn't it?

14)Good analysis Chuck,I have to agree wit hit. However introducing a new movement is one thing but claiming they are reliable when they aren't (case of the 33xx) is another.

Which is my point Georges...

The problems with the Co-Axial and the c.33xx's are not due to Omega's ceasing production of their own movements in the late 1970's-early 1980's epoch. Nor is the confusion about the service interval's related to the fact the Co-Axial's have an ETA Base movement. It is due to the other factors I mentioned: poor management,communications within the company, and an escapement that has no track record in mass production,among other things.

Having uncompetent watchmakers in watch service centres and having a watch which is badly serviced is also unadmissible.

Um, unacceptable you mean?

I am very demanding when it comes to after sales services and reliability of a product. You may call me "old fashioned" in terms of buying but that is what I am.

That's your perogotive. Whoever, this doesn't mean that what's right for you is a good fit for anyone else, nor that what's right for someone else isn't something they are entitled to pursue.

My philosophy for my collection isn't necessarily the best or the only way it could/should be done, just the path I've taken.

When I buy a watch over $2000 or 2000¤, I expect a 5 stars flawless after sales service

15)the 861 is always good in my book so no worries

Omega had to move from the c.321 to the c.861 because Lemania couldn't make the c. 321 quickly and inexpensively enough for Omega continue to use them in the Speedmaster and Seamasters. I really don't understand why you seem to believe the the non-chronograph movements wouldn't be similarly affected by market demands. But hey, you can feel about that as you please too.

The point remains that if Omega had a producable and economically viable alternative in-house to use instead of the ETA's they would have used them. They didn't so they don't.

16)I never said Omega sucked

I didn't quote you on that, but that has been your tone in dozens of your posts I can point to. To sum up: Old Omega's GOOD, new Omega's BAD really BAD. And again, that's not a quote but just the vibe and tone of your posts.

simply that it was mismanaged,that is a big difference.

Was mismanaged ? Is mismanaged? or both?

I don't know if there was anything Omega could have done during the Double Japanese/Quartz Onslaught of the 1970/80's that would have been better than what it tried. Omega had multiple irons in the fire: Manual, self-winding, Quartz, Tuning Fork. There was no clear path that would have guarenteed survival or viability in the aftermath. Rolex's concentrating on their established product (save for a few quartxz models) served them well, but even that was no guarentee for survival/viability.

Omega does have some strong models like the speedy pro, the triple date speedies.

The Triple-dates, which are Valjoux/ETA 7750's of course.

The fact that there were are so many problems ongoing with the 33xx and also some of the 1120s stopping aren't good signs either.

The c.33xx and the 1120 issues aren't necessarily germaine to the Co-Axial Service interval confusion are they?

I am not even mentioning the quality of the customer service in New Jersey.

Or Lancaster previously, or in other parts of the world...

The too repetitive problems, the badly serviced watches and the wrong claims about the coaxial aren't really helping Omega today and aren't forgiving from a customer standpoint for a such prestigious brand.

And again my point is that many of these issues are management or organaztion, both or lack there of. Not because Omega dropped their own movement manufacture20- 25 years ago, etc.

It's simply a matter of staying on topic and not introducing unrelated rhetoric to this thread.

When you pay high bucks for a watch you are in the whole right to demand a 5 stars flawless customer service and watch.

and I would hope clear and honest communications.

17)I always appreciated your honesty and frankness. Also I must state that we can't agree on everything but we nevertheless do agree on some points ;) I am however someone realistic and it will go completely against my honesty to saying something is good when it is not the case or when it is subject to too many problems.It is good to be optimistic but I prevail realism over optimism.Just my 2 cents.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on all subjects or topics. However, when talking about Flightmasters or which Speedmaster was worn on the moon, I do not include a bunch of opinion, rhetoric or sentences on how strongly I feel about how the c.33xx situation.

Because that would not be related to the topic at hand.

Georges, I think everyone here would appreciate if we can keep down such unrelated rhetoric within this and other unrelatged threads. It really is a downer to many people who are participating here and it casts a pall on the forum.

regards and have a great week end

georges

Likewise,

-- Chuck