| Informational Websites | ChronoMaddox -- the legacy of Chuck Maddox | OnTheDash -- vintage Heuer website | Zowie -- Omega information |
| Discussion Forums | ChronoMaddox Forum | Heuer Forum | Omega Forum |
| Counterfeit Watchers | ChronoTools Forum | ChronoTrader Forum |
|
|
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. |
Ok- the FAQ is clear more isnt NECESSARILY better, BUT if you are comparing across the same model (say a vintage Constellation) is it fair to say that 17j is not as reliable, sturdy, or long lived as a 24j? It's confusing to look at vintage (ca. 50s) Constellations and see that they can say "chronometer, officially certified" whether they have 17,19 or 24 jewels. Does that mean the certification in the 50s was less stringent?
Did the design of these movements significantly change so that the later models with the calendar needed 24j but offered no advantage over the earlier models?
| 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 |