zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Opened July 1999, zOwie is the Internet's first and longest running discussion forum dedicated to Omega brand watches.

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.

Forgot your Password? RSS

Return to Index Read Responses

However, the c.33xx IS NOT based on the FP c.1185�

In Response To: 33xx is a frederic piguet movement ()

33xx is a frederic piguet movement Posted By: georges zaslavsky Date: 2/16/06 21:44 GMT

In Response To: Movement question for georges (Seismic Sam)

No,the 33xx family of movements is based on the frederic piguet 1285 es deluxe. It is not the most robust column wheel selfwinding chrono movement but a great bargain for the price.

For what it's worth, the c.33xx movements are not based on the Fredric Piguet 1185 movement.
I'm not familiar with the "Frederic Piguet 1285" movement that Georges references...

Georges, would you care to enlighten me? Was that a typo or ???

I don't know... Perhaps, 1285 is Piguet's internal name for movement Omega calls the c.33xx's.

However the "Omega c.33xx is based on the F. Piguet 1185" contention is unfortunately a very commonly recited piece of misinformation often cited by people quoting John Holbrook's articles (among a number of other authors)... I've seen a number of instances where John erroneously states the c.33xx is based on the c.1185 and even that Omega (and not Swatch Group) owns F. Piguet.

Here is one example...:
�The caliber 3303 is Omega's first movement that can truly be considered a manufacturers movement since the Swatch Group acquisition of Omega. Based on the Frederic Piquet caliber 1185, and produced in a Piquet facility now owned by Omega, the 3303 is a fantastic movement, with not only a pedigree in "high horology" but also some very noteworthy technology - a free sprung balance, column wheel control mechanism, and lever escapement. The 3303 is also finely decorated by Omega with rhodium plating, and Geneva waves and striping throughout. Unfortunately, since the watches launch in 2001, the 3303 and it's variants have been marred by some quality control issues. Omega has gone on record saying that the noted problems have been eliminated in the newest examples of the 3303, but examples still exist on dealer shelves that exhibit the infamous chronograph reset issue. Once the memory of the launch issues fade, the 3303 will likely be remembered as one of Omega's greatest achievements, and a true giant among chronograph movements. RATING: 8�
-- John Holbrook II, -- Comparative Review of the Rolex Cosmograph Daytona Reference 116520 VS. The Omega Speedmaster Broad Arrow Model3551. 20.00, December 26, 2004

Those are John's words, verbatim from his site. Allow me to dissect this a bit...

"The caliber 3303 is Omega's first movement that can truly be considered a manufacturers movement since the Swatch Group acquisition of Omega."

Using this reasoning, a Valjoux or an ETA movement could also be considered �a manufacturers movement� too because Swatch Group has bought Valjoux in the late 1990's and has owned ETA for an far longer stretch of time.

�Based on the Frederic Piquet caliber 1185,�

This is clearly incorrect as I detailed in July of 2004 (fully six months before John's article): Omegac. 33xx is ? to the Piguet c.1185 Illustrated:

Omegac. 33xx is ? to the Piguet c.1185 Illustrated:

�... and produced in a Piquet facility... �
It is produced in a Piguet (note the spelling, John isn't spelling the name right! 8-o...) facility.

�now owned by Omega,�

Swatch Group owns Fr�d�ric Piguet SA, not Omega... In fact Swatch Group owns Omega too.

�the 3303 is a fantastic movement,�

And the Firestone Wilderness II AT Tire is a fantastic tire!

�with not only a pedigree in "high horology" but also some very noteworthy technology - a free sprung balance, column wheel control mechanism, and lever escapement.�

The c.33xx does introduce (or in the instance of the Column wheel - reintroduce) some interesting technology, but I disagree that the c.3303 (or the c.3301) is a fantastic movement. The length and breadth of the problems this movement has had is nigh astounding.

�Unfortunately, since the watches launch in 2001, the 3303 and it's variants have been marred by some quality control issues.�

�Some?, Dozens and dozens is more like it, and those are only the reports we've heard. Also, I'm not convinced all of these problems are caused a �quality control� issue...

As detailed in Shaun Thornton's posting on the 4 identifiable issues with the c.33xx movement this link has my thoughts interspersed in reply to Shaun), at least two of the four issues (#'s 1 and #2 in Shaun's post) could be design, engineering or materials issue(s), not a quality control issue. One (#3) is a "Driver/Pilot/wearer" issue that apparently Piguet neglected to "idiot-proof" before shipping. The last issue identified by Shaun (#4) is a "in some early movements the screw holding the column wheel would come loose and jam the movement" ... This could be a Quality Control issue, but it could be a flaw in the design that causes the column wheel to come loose.

Additionally, we've had at least two incidents where the rotor as become detached from the movement, banging around in between the caseback and movement (a decidedly unhealthy thing). These problems could be quality control issues, or some sort of design/materials flaw. But Quality Control is certainly high on the list.

I'd also point out that the c.3301 variant only entered production/distribution in the 2003-2004 timeframe, and has also exhibited these same types of problems reported of the c.3303, although to a seemingly lesser extent. The c.3313 variant is even newer, with two out of three known owners over at TZ's Omega Forum reporting problems severe enough to have to send them in for repair work.

�Omega has gone on record saying that the noted problems have been eliminated in the newest examples of the3303, �

Would anyone honestly expect Omega to report any differently?

As Omega hasn't stated a serial number point after which movements have received the retrofit "Revision B" parts, it's impossible for a customer (or even an Authorized Dealer) to determine if a watch has those "improved" parts. I will say that there have been fewer problems reported in recent months, than in previous months, and problem reports seem to be occurring in longer intervals, but they have not ceased.

But these same problems are occuring in c.3301 and c.3313 variants of thec. 33xx movement, which are at least two years removed from the ,,only in early examples,, report that John has made in other articles.

�but examples still exist on dealer shelves that exhibit the infamous chronograph reset issue.�

... and the other issues as well...

�Once the memory of the launch issues fade, the 3303 will likely be remembered as one of Omega's greatest achievements, and a true giant among chronograph movements. RATING: 8�

Well, John does use the wiggle word "likely" so that isn't stated as a fact, but rather a prediction. John is, of course, entitled to predict whatever he wishes too. Predictive accuracy varies widely from predictor to predictor.

I believe the legacy for the c.33xx is not set yet. Had the c.33xx not had the initial run of problems it has suffered, we likely would be pushing John's thoughts from the "likely" range towards the more solid range of the spectrum. However, with the exception of the Valjoux 7750 and ETA/DuBois-Depraz calibres which have been in continuous production for over a dozen years, Omega does not have an especially proud record of having long runs with their automatic chronograph movements. The c.1045 was only used off and on in spots and spurts for 13 years, the c.1040 for an even shorter period (perhaps 9 years), while the c.1041 was only used for one year for a production run of 2,000 units. As much as Georges and I like these Lemania based movements, Omega didn't stick with them for very long. The jury is still far from a verdict with regards to the c.33xx's. But the c.33xx has not had an auspicious start to say the least.

Again, many people base their understanding on things they have heard, posts in forums, articles on-line and in magazines. I'm not singling out John and his article, but this was the one I was able to quickly find.

The 3313 is the coaxial version of the 3301 and 3303.

Agreed.

The most durable movement when it comes to selfwinding chrono column wheel movements is the rolex 4130

I can't agree with this. The Rolex 4130 is too new to bestow this "crown" in my opinion. At least the Zenith El-Primero has a three dozen year plus - long established record. The Rolex 4130, which has only been in volume production since 2001, hasn't yet won a durability crown from Zenith yet.
The Rolex 4130, like thec. 3303, also had rash of problems in the first batch of watches shipped. However, Rolex had only introduced their new movement in their lower production "Daytona Beach" line, and managed to rectify those issues quickly and effectively. Far more effectively and quicker than Omega has, that is for sure. Since 2002, and in non-"Beach" Daytona's I haven't heard of any problems with the 4130 (or Daytona) movement.

and when it comes to the handwound chrono column wheel movement it is the lemania 2310-2320 calibers.

Oh, I suppose I can agree with Georges on this at least with an explanation... The Lemania c.1873 family of course isn't a column wheel movement, but it's every bit as durable as the 2310-2320's. The Zenith Prime, Elite and El-Primero HW movements are not as widely produced as the Lemania 2310-2320 has been throughout it's life, so it's hard to judge them because much fewer people have them. Landeron, Venus and Excelsior Park movements aren't generally considered to be the equal or equivalent to the Lemania movements. Which brings us to the Valjoux 71-72 family of movements.
Many many people have made great hay about how the Speedmaster passed the 1960's NASA test while the Rolex and Longines (both Valjoux 72 based) contestants did not. I have always been fair to point out that the Speedmaster gained an ungodly amount of time in one test (in the 15-22 minute range) and lost a similar amount of time (again15- 22 minutes) in another test. But as it kept running, NASA approved it. The reason the Rolex and the Longines were withdrawn from the competition was because one of them lost a crystal (Which a Moonwatch would do on Apollo 15, incidentally) while the other's hands warped to such an extent that the bound on one another causing the movement to lock up. Neither the Crystal nor the Hand issues caused by the Valjoux Movement!!!

Georges knows that I too prefer the Omega c.321 (Lemania 2310 base) over the Valjoux 72. However, the Valjoux 72 is a fine movement and was an intense competitor to the Lemania movement for many many years... It too is a durable movement, non-movement problems with the v.72 watches NASA tested not withstanding. I am not disagreeing with Georges that the Lemania is at the top, but the Valjoux is likely second and probably a strong second.

hope it helps

regards

georges

p.s: eta doesn't play in the same ground than piguet,

It's (ETA's) market segment is different thatn Piguet.
Agreed.

and there is a huge difference between an eta movement finish and a piguet movement finsih same for quality

Well, depends upon the watch producer too, as it varies greatly on the ETA end from say a Ventura who literally go through every movement they sell, adding value every step along the way, and a firm producing lower cost ETA/DuBois-Depraz based watches.
Also finish quality doesn't always necessarily add to the durability and reliability of a movement. I won't draw any conclusions from the Omega-Piguet affair in this regard, but I will say an esquisitly finished movement will rarely save a flawed movement, and a plain/pedestrian finish won't condemm a rugged/reliable movement.

Hope this helps!

-- Chuck

Chuck Maddox		*Chronographs, like most finer things in life, only improve with time...* Watch Article Index: http://www.xnet.com/~cmaddox/cm3articles.html, Watch Links Page: http://www.xnet.com/~cmaddox/watch.html, Watch Blog: http://chuckmaddoxwatch.blogspot.com/.