![]() |
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. |
I'll conceede on the helium valve but then again I personally think they are all stupid...but the movement I don't think I agree on, the Co Axial has been in the real world in the 2892 form for a while now and many say it is very reliable, and personally I would rate the base 2892 at least as durable if not more than the Rolex 313X series, this is discounting the balance issue which was corrected with the co axial versions...
Also as far as value over the years personally I don't care much, every Rolex I have bought new and sold has lost money, I have done calculations and if I did the same with Omega or many other brands I would have lost less...YMMV but as long as the watch is good I don't care much about resale, but with my track record I don't make out any better with Rolex
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 |