zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

...so as not to prolong what is mainly an "opinion" type debate but here is the "watchmaker's" reply:

Was that article written by a watchmaker? Note one thing was the 72 is not the same as a [Rolex] 727. The 727 has updated features and a fast beat free sprung balance. All the other Omega calibers were equipped with an old style non free sprung regulator balance. To the untrained eye what one perceives buffer is not strength or quality of materials used. Also Valjoux placed it's jewels in a more intelligent way.

That Rolex vs Omaga write up was one person's opinion on Omega calibers. But ask a watchmaker who has worked on both types of movements and you get the same final result as I said. And also ask the same watchmaker about the truing and posing the balance as well. The 727 is light years ahead in accuracy and positional errors and amplitude.The balance and hair spring are key in that respect. Seems that in the article that was overlooked. lol

One other thing if plastic does a better job(LOL) then metal parts, why does PP or other top brands not use plastic?

"and the c.x87x series uses similarly BEEFY levers" Not sure I agree with that. The 727 levers are machined while the Omega levers looked stamped from the pictures.
But he is showing the wrong part in question from my original post. Anyway, look at any 727 or 234 caliber and no plastic parts are to be found.

Look at the scan below and see how Valjoux placed all the jewels at the best points. Look at all the wheels on both calibers and compare jewel for jewel. Again why has Omega never equipped any of it's 1970's movements with a free sprung balance? Like I have always said, the Omega is more on line with the Tudor MC not the Daytona. Forget the plastic parts issue for a sec and take balance for balance. You now see why the Daytona 727 is a better caliber then any 1970's Omega caliber. The watchtimer has told many truths.

Sorry, no time to correct the grammar.
;-)
Best,
T.