Community Stories

Questions about accuracy and power reserve of my recently serviced 2503.52 Railmaster

Archer
Posts
27,816
Likes
70,649
Yes, Omega now recommends that reversing wheels not be used again, so they should be replaced at every service. Mind you for years they were used again and personally I've never had an issue with that as long as they didn't have any wear, but I still replace them now as they are not expensive.

padders padders
Without drilling down into the minutiae too much, yes it does sound like your Omega is not self winding as efficiently as it should. I seem to recall the reversers on 2892 based movements (such as the 2500 and similar 2403) can be problematic. If it continues to stop in use then it should go back for revision.

The 2892A2 is sort of a different beast to the Omega 1120/2500 series movements. Many parts are the same, but also many are different. One of the bigger changes in the automatic is the bearing on the rotor - very different between the 2. This made the rotor far more efficient in winding on the 1120/2500 series than it is on the 2892.

But with both, it relies on the bearing being in good condition, and also being cleaned very well, and lubricated properly. If there's an issue with it winding, in my experience this is usually where the problem lies, rather than the reversing wheel. If the watchmaker isn't cleaning the rotor bearing properly, ensuring it passes the damping tests, and lubricating it properly, it will affect the ability to wind. It can be as simple as using too much oil on the bearing - these are not forgiving with too much oil like say a 7750 rotor bearing is.
 
T
Posts
18
Likes
1
Archer Archer
Yes, Omega now recommends that reversing wheels not be used again, so they should be replaced at every service. Mind you for years they were used again and personally I've never had an issue with that as long as they didn't have any wear, but I still replace them now as they are not expensive.



The 2892A2 is sort of a different beast to the Omega 1120/2500 series movements. Many parts are the same, but also many are different. One of the bigger changes in the automatic is the bearing on the rotor - very different between the 2. This made the rotor far more efficient in winding on the 1120/2500 series than it is on the 2892.

But with both, it relies on the bearing being in good condition, and also being cleaned very well, and lubricated properly. If there's an issue with it winding, in my experience this is usually where the problem lies, rather than the reversing wheel. If the watchmaker isn't cleaning the rotor bearing properly, ensuring it passes the damping tests, and lubricating it properly, it will affect the ability to wind. It can be as simple as using too much oil on the bearing - these are not forgiving with too much oil like say a 7750 rotor bearing is.
Thank you very much for the input. It is good to know there is another possible cause and to my understanding it sounds more likely since the reverser wheel was replaced with the service.
So far it is going well. The third day of wearing the watch after fully winding it once is coming to a close and it is running at +3s overall. It has spent roughly 12 hours sitting inbetween days. Will see what the rest of the week brings.

Is there a world in which the full wind could have brought the mechanism back to working as it should? Pure speculation I guess.
 
Dan S
Posts
21,456
Likes
48,721
T thosewhoknow
Is there a world in which the full wind could have brought the mechanism back to working as it should? Pure speculation I guess.
Yes ... the real world. Watch movements generally perform better when fully wound. Isochronism is aspirational.
 
T
Posts
18
Likes
1
Dan S Dan S
Yes ... the real world. Watch movements generally perform better when fully wound. Isochronism is aspirational.
I think I meant something differnt. The fact it is keeping better time when fully found is not surprising to me.

What I meant was if there is the possibility that fully winding it once (first time since I got it back from service) might have the consequence of the self-winding functionality being back to working in its full capacity as it still seems likely to me that it was not working properly up to three days ago.

The reason I called it pure speculation is that I guess it is too early to say whether it is self-winding properly now, or not.
 
Dan S
Posts
21,456
Likes
48,721
T thosewhoknow
I think I meant something differnt. The fact it is keeping better time when fully found is not surprising to me.

What I meant was if there is the possibility that fully winding it once (first time since I got it back from service) might have the consequence of the self-winding functionality being back to working in its full capacity as it still seems likely to me that it was not working properly up to three days ago.

The reason I called it pure speculation is that I guess it is too early to say whether it is self-winding properly now, or not.
That's the same thing as what I said. If you never wound it fully after getting it back from service, it has always been running while partially wound. I wouldn't expect the auto-winding mechanism to wind it fully from a stop, just by wearing it. That's what people have been trying to tell you in this thread.
 
T
Posts
18
Likes
1
Dan S Dan S
That's the same thing as what I said. If you never wound it fully after getting it back from service, it has always been running while partially wound. I wouldn't expect the auto-winding mechanism to wind it fully from a stop, just by wearing it. That's what people have been trying to tell you in this thread.
Interesting, I must have missed that.

On the other hand I would assume that the watchmaker did wind it fully once in order to assess the power reserve...
 
T
Posts
18
Likes
1
T thosewhoknow
Interesting, I must have missed that.

On the other hand I would assume that the watchmaker did wind it fully once in order to assess the power reserve...
At least that is what they claim to do: a three-day running test.
 
Dan S
Posts
21,456
Likes
48,721
T thosewhoknow
At least that is what they claim to do: a three-day running test.
That would be pretty typical. To wind the watch fully by hand and then test it while on a motorized winder.

IIRC, Omega recommends that you wind an automatic watch by hand before wearing it. The motion of your wrist will then hopefully keep it fully wound if you are reasonably active.
 
T
Posts
18
Likes
1
Just a quick update: The test with a fully wound start came to the same conclusion. For four days it ran within chronometer tolerances before gaining 12 seconds on day five (while wearing and moving) and another 18 seconds while resting between days five and six.

I will now contact the watchmaker and have it returned for another service.

Thanks to everyone for helping out!
 
Dan S
Posts
21,456
Likes
48,721
So the watch is running well, but the autowinding mechanism is not keeping it fully wound as you wear it. This could be due either to inefficient auto-winding, or insufficient activity. The watchmaker can put it on a winder to test it.
 
T
Posts
18
Likes
1
Dan S Dan S
So the watch is running well, but the autowinding mechanism is not keeping it fully wound as you wear it.
Correct, and this had been established before.
Dan S Dan S
This could be due either to inefficient auto-winding, or insufficient activity. The watchmaker can put it on a winder to test it.
As I walk a reasonable amount (7.000 steps a day on average), my Fortis has never had trouble and as the Omega is running out of steam every single time, it seems quite clear to me that it is the auto-winding not functioning as it should.
 
T
Posts
18
Likes
1
T thosewhoknow
Just a quick update: The test with a fully wound start came to the same conclusion. For four days it ran within chronometer tolerances before gaining 12 seconds on day five (while wearing and moving) and another 18 seconds while resting between days five and six.

I will now contact the watchmaker and have it returned for another service.

Thanks to everyone for helping out!
I just realized I misquoted. Not sure what happened, but I got the days and some stats mixed up while transfering (and translating) them from my notes to over here. Even though it does not really make much difference, the correct stats are:

It ran fine for five days of wear, during which it gained 11s total. It gained another 9s over night between days five and six, another 3s while wearing on day six and then another 18s over night between days six and seven. It then ran to a full stop about 12 hours after last setting it down on the evening of day six. (And on said day six I walked 6.900 steps wearing the watch for 15 hours...)
 
Jakeys
Posts
439
Likes
1,009
Fair enough, you were right! Good work doing the test and coming back to let us know.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...