zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

1)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)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. 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.
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. Ok,then we cqan remove that from contention/discussion at this time.

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

4)There is the old saw about car salesmen... ‘You know how to tell when a car salesman is lying to you??? t'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)a)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.
b)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.
c)Yes, because if they went with the available and economically viable ETA 2892 they could continue to be survive to do business, if they continued with their own movements their firm would die.I am not certain it is. Which is one of my major concerns.
d)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?
e)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)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.
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. Saudi investment in and involvement with Heuer occured in 1984-1985 timeframe, not 1989. This co-indided with the TAG-Heuer name. 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. a)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?
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. In addition to all of those handwound and selfwinding movements they made for Omega.
b)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.
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.
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.
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.

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

8) 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.

9)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)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...
ok, but the Valjoux isn't any better than ,,movements made by subcontactors,,like ETA/Dubois-Depraz?
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.

Thus Gallet's 100% manufacture Excelsior Park Movement powered watches are no panacea as I stated. 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.
not a significantly different amount, and if one
is wearing the watch regularly the difference shouldn't be a concern.
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! tay on topic and leave the unrelated rhetoric for threads dealing with Omega's older movements!

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)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)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.
Um, unacceptable you mean?
That's your prerogotive. 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.

15)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)a)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.
Was mismanaged ? Is mismanaged? or both?
b)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.
c)The c.33xx and the 1120 issues aren't necessarily germaine to the Co-Axial Service
interval confusion are they?
Or Lancaster previously, or in other parts of
the world...
d)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.
e)It's simply a matter of staying on topic and
not introducing unrelated rhetoric to this
thread.
f)and I would hope clear and honest communications.

17)a)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.
b)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.
-------------------------------------------------
1)My goal wasn't to open a can of worms but rather describe the problems encountered by Omega.

2)You didn't mention that the strong reputation of Omega USA was mainly due to the Norman Morris Corp who was the main importator of Omega from the late 30's till the mid 70's, you also didn't mention that many ADs are not selling Omega anymore which is probably due to the horrible Omega service centers in the USA. Omega did a very good job when modfiying the lemania 1340 into the 1040 and when modifying the 861 into cal 910 and 911 for the flightmaster.So I am not in whole agreement with you concerning the modification of piguet movements by Omega.

3)a)perhaps should we say like Omega advertising it(the 36xx found in the coax rattrapante)is something flawless who will never fail (despite it shares the defective 33xx movement base)?
b)No disagreement here.

4)No disagreement

5)a)The 3035 was phased out in 1988 and it had an eleven year reign from 1977 to 1988.Its successor is the 3135 in production since 1989.
b)That is my fault talking about vintage cars blame that on me but I like vintage cars and I assume responsibility for this off topic
c)no disagreement
d) probably lot of money but as the end the quality would be way higher and the profit on the product will be higher as well

6)I got confused by your post at the beginning.
a)ok
b)you have a big after market for vintage cars in the USA some people restore these cars and otehr still use them as their daily drivers.My uncle living in dallas still use his 70 fleetwood as his daily driver. He has reworked the valves seats in order to wrok wit hunleaded premium gasoline and also changed the camshaft for a betetr one, the engine has 170000 miles and is still running like a charm. It passed the exhaust emission tests two years ago without any problems, about safety it has massive front 4 piston disc brakes and heavy 11 inch drums who are very powerful, you also didn't mention than all luxury and personal cars were fitted with assited power steering as well as assited braking. The first car which had airbags as optional was the buick riviera boattail and in 1971. Myself I drive a 1999 Polo Match but I happen to drive the cars of my uncle who lives in Lausanne, a 1961 Imperial Crown Le Baron and a 1969 Charger R/T.
The problem is that in france insurance costs are insane and gasoline price is very insane too. Chuck, for me everything I buy has to be very durable and very solid. I know soemone who has a 92 town car and has more than 280000miles at the odo, I also like cars of the nineties because some of them were exceptionnaly built or designed.

8) OK Chuck. As far as we know Motorcraft is a part of ford and AC Delco used and still uses (unless I am mistaken) to be part of GM and both are spark plugs and other spare parts manufacturer.

9)That model costs 7850€ less than a coax rattrapante or a coax in gold. Too costly maybe or perhaps the msrp would be too high for an Omega to have this movement adopted in mass production.

10)Valjoux is way superior to eta dubois/debra movements, I am not saying the opposite. The dubois depraz being a modular chrono is not the best thing. The valjoux 72 spare parts availability is quite poor in France. Rolex also now refuses to service vintage Daytonas with the valjoux 72, the only way to service a vintage dayto is to go to a certified rolex watchmaker but they aren't many and there aren't many watchmakers who restore correctly the valjoux 72 as well as service it correctly.

11)no disagreement here

12)My watchmaker who has many years of experience, told me that any lemania movement (except the lemania watch lorient 283 modular movement on the eta 2892) can go fine between 10-15 years without any service.

13)ok too early to make judgements but let's not forget that what Omega claims about the service intervals is confusing.

14)no disagreemnt

15)Ernst Thomke got rid of the whole tooling which was helping Omega too manufacture its movements in 1983, he judged mechanical movements as superfluous and said that the quartz will be the future of watchmaking. That same man was also one of the iniator of the swatch project.

16)a)no, some modern Omega like the deville with the 1120 or the older deville with the peseux base wit hsmall second at 6 was good model, the smp is a very good watch tough I am not a fan of its manual helium valve.
b)no disagreement
c)ok
d)no disgraeement
e)no disagreemnt
f)no disagreement

17)a)I know it
b)ok Chuck fair enough

have a great day

very best regards

georges