zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

: Hi again,

: While I am at it, can anybody comment on how
: robust/tough the 2500C movement is? Thinking
: in comaprisson to Rolexes, JLC, who have
: some movements they say are made for extreme
: conditions (temperature/shock..).

: Btw I put my PO in the freezer for 3-4 hours to
: see what it would do, it ran fine but lost
: abt 7 secs per hour (and was white with
: frost when i took it out). Started running
: as normal as soon as it warmed up again.

: Tks in advance.

: Erik

Caliber 2500C hasn't been around nearly as long as Rolex caliber 3135 in order to make a true apples to apples comparison. Although caliber 2500 did first appear in 1999, it has since been updated twice. The original A version was problematic from day one and was only used in some of the first production DeVilles. It was almost immediately re-engineered to create caliber 2500B, which was used in the first Aqua Terras. Although caliber 2500B was not problematic, Omega upgraded the movement once again around the end of 2004 to create caliber 2500C. This version differs from the B version in that it has a slower beat rate (7 vibrations per second vs. 8 for the B version). The newer C version also has a modified lift angle to make production easier. Because it operates at a lower beat rate, it has about 4 extra hours of power reserve when compared to the B version. So, for all intents and purposes, caliber 2500C has been around for less than 3 years, which means that the watches fitted with it haven't even been around long enough to require their first routine servicing. So, in my opinion, it's simply too early to make any definitive comparisons between caliber 2500C and caliber 3135.

We can debate the pros and cons of the co-axial escapement, in-house movements vs. ETA-based movements, etc., but I prefer to look at real world data as the best indicator of reliability. Just my 2 cents....

Cheers,
John