3861 movement broken? *Update: Read First Post*

Posts
82
Likes
240
Mine also had this same misalignment prior to sending it in for the chronograph stopping issue (see pics here), as well as the chrono seconds being slightly misaligned to the left of 12. They fixed the chrono hours but the seconds remain misaligned. Really disappointed in their quality control... for the amount of money that these watches cost, it should be perfect.

And yeah I feel the same about sending it back... the service has a two year warranty so I think I'm just going to deal with it until that time is almost up and then send it back in. Such a shame because it puts a damper on my enjoyment of an otherwise perfect watch.

Bummer! you dont have the five year warranty?
 
Posts
63
Likes
196
Bummer! you dont have the five year warranty?

Yeah I got it new about a year ago so I still have about four years left on that but the service receipt says the repairs are guaranteed for 2 years. Not sure if one supersedes the other but I guess I’m probably good for the remaining 4 of the original warranty.
 
Posts
27,604
Likes
70,226
Yeah I got it new about a year ago so I still have about four years left on that but the service receipt says the repairs are guaranteed for 2 years. Not sure if one supersedes the other but I guess I’m probably good for the remaining 4 of the original warranty.

Note that repairs done under warranty are not given a two year warranty. The remainder of the Omega warranty is still in place, and it not extended under normal circumstances.

The two year warranty is on paid servicing.
 
Posts
14
Likes
14
Hi everyone. I'm new to this forum, having been a member of the Rolex Forums for nearly 20 years.

I bought my sapphire sandwich 3861 Speedmaster on 31st August last year from an OB in the UK, so I'm guessing that it was produced before this problem was eliminated at the manufacturing stage on new watches. So, here I am, at almost six months, and everything seems fine. Given that there seems to be an established issue with the early 3861 movements, I'm a bit intrigued as to why these malfunctions aren't more prevalent. Presumably most watches are ok, otherwise there would be mass returns to Omega for rectification and I therefore wonder if there is some other factor(s) at play that cause only certain watches to be affected? Or is it just the luck of the draw?

Stan.
 
Posts
4,998
Likes
22,453
Hi everyone. I'm new to this forum, having been a member of the Rolex Forums for nearly 20 years.

I bought my sapphire sandwich 3861 Speedmaster on 31st August last year from an OB in the UK, so I'm guessing that it was produced before this problem was eliminated at the manufacturing stage on new watches. So, here I am, at almost six months, and everything seems fine. Given that there seems to be an established issue with the early 3861 movements, I'm a bit intrigued as to why these malfunctions aren't more prevalent. Presumably most watches are ok, otherwise there would be mass returns to Omega for rectification and I therefore wonder if there is some other factor(s) at play that cause only certain watches to be affected? Or is it just the luck of the draw?

Stan.
There were already about 8k 3861's on the market since 2019, so my guess is it's just luck of the draw. My A11 has no issues.
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
Sorry to hear you have this issue. As much as it is a pain, the good news is it’s fixable. I hope you get your watch back quickly and enjoy it. Mine has been good as gold since the work was done.

Hi there !

I am a measurement engineer within the oil and gas industry hence frequently dealing with test instruments, field instruments and whole measurement systems certifications hence my query:

Would you know if the watches initially issued with COSC and METAS certification but returned under guarantee for defects will be fully serviced then be recertified by COSC and METAS ? Given that a service voids the watch certifications, in principle it must be renewed. Therefore the two successive certifications should be available for that watch “as delivered” and “after service” hence providing its service / certification history.

Are the watches COSC & METAS recertified following a service ?
 
Posts
27,604
Likes
70,226
Are the watches COSC & METAS recertified following a service ?

No. They don't need to be. They will be certified to Omega's internal standards, which meet or exceed the METAS and COSC requirements.
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
No. They don't need to be. They will be certified to Omega's internal standards, which meet or exceed the METAS and COSC requirements.

Thanks for your prompt response.

It’s a pity that the certification is not renewed as it is a pretty nice thing to have a certified watch. Now, I would understand that it may not be done for pieces which are serviced away from the factory but perhaps this can be requested for pieces returned for service to the Omega factory or is it a complete “No No” ?
 
Posts
27,604
Likes
70,226
Thanks for your prompt response.

It’s a pity that the certification is not renewed as it is a pretty nice thing to have a certified watch. Now, I would understand that it may not be done for pieces which are serviced away from the factory but perhaps this can be requested for pieces returned for service to the Omega factory or is it a complete “No No” ?

There's really no need. Most things that are covered under the certification are built into the watch and will not change during the service. For example the magnetic resistance will not change. The depth ratings will not change, etc.

The only thing that has any potential to change is the timekeeping, but again, you will (or should) get evidence of the timekeeping after service returned to you with the watch.

Think of it this way - one a watch is certified as a chronometer, it will always be so. It may just not run that well at some distant time in the future.

This isn't the type of certification you believe it to be...
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
I think that we all here love Omega, but we have to face it: Geoge Daniels was a superb warchmaker and the coaxial escapement is far from being perfect, at least as Daniels thought. Omega bought the idea and showed it as the future for the mechanical watches. However, problems began to appear and took years to make coaxial movements reliable. Omega will never recognize it , but coaxial is not an improvement over traditional escapement. At least in real life. I'm afraid thar with the new coaxial 3861 caliber they are facing the old problens again. Let's hope they find the solution sooner this time. Just my opinion only.

A bearing material / lubrication issue of the centre wheel as quoted within this thread has nothing to do with the co-axial escapement.

I think Omega should be highly praised and applauded for making all efforts to test, re-develop and industrialise George Daniels’ co-axial escapment. It’s a great initiative.

Now, today I wonder what tangible benefits has the co-axial escapement brought to the Omega watches timekeeping performances, reliability, stability, etc… and ultimately service intervals. For instance, how would all performance parameters compare with arch-rival Rolex ?

Rolex watches are given for a -2/+2 sec/day performance relying on COSC and internal certification. Rolex watches are not METAS certified and it seems these rely on a traditional escapment. They don’t have the 15,000 Gauss amagnetism, etc… Although Tudor watches do have the amagnetic parts technology since these are the result of a joint industry project between Rolex-Omega-Patek Philippe…

In comparison Omega claims 0 to +5 sec/day or 0 to +6 sec/day according to the calibre. That’s pretty close to Rolex with regards to the interval.
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
There's really no need. Most things that are covered under the certification are built into the watch and will not change during the service. For example the magnetic resistance will not change. The depth ratings will not change, etc.

The only thing that has any potential to change is the timekeeping, but again, you will (or should) get evidence of the timekeeping after service returned to you with the watch.

Think of it this way - one a watch is certified as a chronometer, it will always be so. It may just not run that well at some distant time in the future.

This isn't the type of certification you believe it to be...

I fully agree with you although a full recertification following service would be another nice yet “expensive trinket” to have.

In any case the timekeeping performance certification is a traceable demonstration of the watch performance during controlled testing at specific moments in time. Given that these instruments are not solid state, their certification cannot constitute a guarantee that such performance will be repeated consistently outwith the controlled testing environment but yet it provides a high confidence indication of how it should perform.

Given that the COSC and METAS certifications are not repeated in association with a full service means that Omega could perform sample certifications of their production only rather than individual testing which they could apply to each type.
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
As used by you or I or virtually everyone, yes.
An astronaut taking one on EVA or a deep sea diver could, through an extraordinary unlikely set of circumstances have their demise triggered by a faulty wrist watch. I have never heard of the latter, and the agencies tasked with supporting the former do their own due diligence.

I believe that if Speedmasters were again to be used for space missions and could possibly be of any genuine critical use then a specially ordered batch would be made an extensively tested but it would also certainly be from a fully proven model rather than a recent not yet fully proven iteration.
 
Posts
27,604
Likes
70,226
Given that the COSC and METAS certifications are not repeated in association with a full service means that Omega could perform sample certifications of their production only rather than individual testing which they could apply to each type.

Not needed, but sure you could push for that.
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
Has there ever been a full recall of a model, similar to an automobile for a specific part?

A different but related question, if a percentage of watches with the old bushing are failing, at what point should the manufacturer recall them for a replacement?

Should Omega send a notice to all owners before the new bushing to notify them to send it in for service?

While it's expected to have issues with any new movement and it's laudable that Omega is covering it, it does make a person wonder if their future purchase has the improved part. It might be better from a marketing perspective to recall the watches with the old part rather than waiting to fix only the ones that failed.

Just my humble opinion to any Omega executive who hapoens to read the forum

I fully agree with this and I do wonder if a recall was issued… I very much doubt they will do a public recall as their marketing may believe that it would tarnish their image vs the competition…
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
Not needed, but sure you could push for that.


Thanks. I am new to this forum and I have read several of your post. It is absolutely awesome to have the active participation of a genuine watchmaker in this forum. Kudos to you !
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
Being a brand new watch I'm glad my AD gave me a full refund for now. Its a great watch and I will buy it again from them once they sort the bushing thing out. Their customer service at Tourbillion in SF is awesome. These things happen as they always make little mods to movements over the years. The 4130 has had many minor updates over the years I read. Not sure if a recall is necessary as these are not seatbelts or breaks for a car etc. What Omega should do is stop shipping them unless they know they have the upgraded parts but they might feel many wont notice it or it may be years before they do so no major loss.

I don’t know which party is liable for these guarantee factory defects rectifications. It may be 100% Omega and in such case it would be potentially very expensive to recall all watches. The service, parts supplies and shipping back and forth would significantly reduce their profit margins. I mean how much is the cost of a full service, parts and the shipping ? Perhaps around $1000 and this is for a watch sold retail at $6500 approx for the base model, hence roughly $3250 to the AD. So Omega would potentially loose 30% of revenue for each of these base model watches when returned for guarantee work. This would be very significant considering large batches. The cost of a recall would also add to the damage in image, perceived value, etc… hence I very much doubt a recall will ever be on the cards.

But yes, Omega should try to address the new ones they may still have in stock at the factory… so as to limit returns…
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
Then they need to have patience and give Omega time to do that. The new bushing was only put out as the solution a few weeks ago, so this isn't going to get fixed overnight.

Just to add some perspective here, back in 2014 in February, after people reported numerous problems with the dual barrel movement watches that had DLC coated barrels, Omega announced a fix for that. The barrel coating was causing an unexpected reaction with the barrel arbor, so a newly designed barrel was implemented where the coating didn't contact the arbor. This would cause reduced power reserve or stopping of the watch completely, so very similar outcome to what the 3861 is having now.

There were 7 different barrel references that were affected, and Omega rolled out replacements in stages, starting in February of 2014, and they finished it 2 years later. During this time the problem was well known, and no one was calling for recalls, letters making announcements/commitments being sent to every owner, and all the things that have been talked about with regards to the 3861.

So we can agree to disagree about people losing their minds on this one.

It is clear that patience is absolutely necessary as fully diagnosing and engineering a reliable solution does take time then it has to be tested and finally rolled out with high confidence…

These steps always take time.

Now, I would be fairly upset to buy an expensive watch _ a toy really _ and get an engineering / design issue with it as I am often on the move travelling… Thus far none of my watches had issues after more than 15 years wearing them in all sorts of climates and circumstances. I hope to get comparable reliability when I get my Seamaster Titanium 007 when I soon pass through Paris, France… It will be my first Omega, I was seduced by its design.
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
Well, yes, eventually all will get seen to, however that doesn't mean all will fail prematurely. The prematurely part is important, and leads into this question...



Before I try to answer the question directly, I want you and others reading to think about watches a little differently. Here's the reality - from the day the watch is made and sold, it is in the process of failing. Without intervention the watch will come to a stop in some period of time, and what watch manufacturers do is try to make the mean time to failure as long as possible, and then they set expected service intervals (and to a degree their warranty period) based on that.

Does the fact that the watch stops eventually mean it's a bad design? No, of course not, as nothing lasts forever. The thing that makes it a problem for companies and consumers, is if it fails before it is expected to fail. When I think back to the time when the early 2 level co-axial escapements were causing all kinds of problems with premature stoppage of watches, Omega tried several different approaches to resolve the problem on these escapements. Eventually, they came up with a mitigation strategy that allowed the watch to run long enough that customers didn't see it as a problem. The fundamental issue still remained, and every single one of these that I have serviced has had a build up of sticky residue on the intermediate escape wheel and co-axial wheel, but it hadn't yet reached the point of stopping the watch. As long as Omega could delay this failure to a point where it coincided with other failures in the watch movement, and that was at what people considered a "normal" amount of time, it was effectively solved.

Now to the 3861. When this movement was first made and the first technical guide was released, the oiling of the center wheel bushings was what I would call a normal amount of oil, so the same I would use on any other center wheel, like the 1861. So I can't show the Omega documents, so I'll illustrate what a typical call out for oiling the center wheel on a watch looks like, using the publicly available tech guide for the ETA 6497:



The green arrow I've added points to the oiling instruction for the center wheel. This strange looking symbol tells me how much oil is supposed to be applied to this location. The original 3861 technical guide looked like this, but the later version released looks more like this mock-up I've made:



So now there is much more oil being placed in this location. These technical guides are for after sales service, but also reflect what is happening in the manufacturing process, so if you get a watch that has had the updated oiling procedure, it may take much longer for the issues on the center wheel to materialize. In fact, it may never fail prematurely. This additional oiling, like the mitigation used on the 2500 series calibers, may be enough to extend the service interval of the watch to what is considered normal.

The next question is, why the change in bushing material then? Well, if the root cause is the bushing, then it should be changed, but I will note that even with the new bushing, the instructions to add more oil have not been changed, so it still calls for a lot more oil in this location. Omega doesn't give detailed reasoning for these things, but only practical instructions for how to solve the problems, so it may very well be that the new bushing is something they are doing proactively - only they know for sure.

So it is very possible that some of these will never see this problem at all, or when they do it will be time for servicing anyway.

Cheers, Al

Fantastic response !
 
Posts
5,070
Likes
17,638
A bearing material / lubrication issue of the centre wheel as quoted within this thread has nothing to do with the co-axial escapement.

I think Omega should be highly praised and applauded for making all efforts to test, re-develop and industrialise George Daniels’ co-axial escapment. It’s a great initiative.

Now, today I wonder what tangible benefits has the co-axial escapement brought to the Omega watches timekeeping performances, reliability, stability, etc… and ultimately service intervals. For instance, how would all performance parameters compare with arch-rival Rolex ?

Rolex watches are given for a -2/+2 sec/day performance relying on COSC and internal certification. Rolex watches are not METAS certified and it seems these rely on a traditional escapment. They don’t have the 15,000 Gauss amagnetism, etc… Although Tudor watches do have the amagnetic parts technology since these are the result of a joint industry project between Rolex-Omega-Patek Philippe…

In comparison Omega claims 0 to +5 sec/day or 0 to +6 sec/day according to the calibre. That’s pretty close to Rolex with regards to the interval.

Rolex doesn't recertify after service.
 
Posts
168
Likes
52
T tooch
Full product recalls never really happen unless something is a safety issue (which this obviously is not).
I think the best way to approach it would be to offer a (new production, bushing fitted) replacement watch to anyone who suffers the fault within X period of time, provided the watch is still in as-new condition, rather than making them wait potentially months for a repair.


‍This would lead to a very costly logistical nightmare.