3861 movement vs the new 321. Which is the better movement from a technical stand point.

ErichPryde

I understand. A lot of us, I think, have done considerable thinking about the "value retention" comment you made, which is why this whole accuracy/value conversation is coming up. Some mechanical watches retain value- but it's completely because of brand and model first and the technology after. Longines and Tissot (among others) would like to know where their value retention is, I am sure.

These conversations so often ignore the very real and very significant upkeep costs that mechanical watches have in comparison to your average quartz movement. Being able and willing to pay those upkeep costs when they come up is part of the "prestige" that comes along with this hobby. Do we consider service/upkeep costs to be depreciative?

This is a great hobby, I write this comment as I very happily sport my summer blue seamaster heritage. But I have no illusion that in terms of initial cost + current depreciation + future upkeep costs, I would have been better off if "monetary value" was really my prime focus, to just put the cash into $SPY. But, sometimes a luxury can be an investment in oneself, and that can be just as important.

Kmmdad57

mechanical watches, in general, holds their value better than quartz or electronic watches

Tekashi_145.022

If value retention is the game, instead of buying an Omega, buy a $150 Seiko and put your remaining thousands of dollars into an S&P 500 fund. The cost of servicing the watch over the course of your life will wipe out any financial value the watch retained, anyway.

MCC

I bought a Railmaster with a Co-axial movement about 16 years ago precisely because it was a Co-axial. I read about George Daniels work on these and wanted one. I love the watch but has completely stopped and needed fixing/servicing 3 times in that period. Ironically the only watch I have that has done this. Not everyone will service a coaxial movement so you need to be careful who you send it to.STS have become my default.

I also remember seeing an interview with Roger Smith where he claimed that he had improved and fixed the problems of Daniels original design. Is the case of the apprentice becoming the master I wonder?

In any event I also tend to regard the coaxial movement as largely an interesting idea that has become great marketing.

Archer

Not really - Daniel's wanted 18,000 A/Hr for co-axial. There are plenty of co-axial movements that Omega makes that run at 28,800 A/Hr so the beat rate reduction to 25,200 A/Hr are not significant in terms of reliability, although this is a common theory stated on watch forums.

Archer

The final resolution that eliminates the issue is gong back to Daniel's original design - the 3 level co-axial escapement. All of the issues that Omega fought for years were with Daniel's 2 level co-axial escapement design, which was a compromise that Daniels made when he was trying to sell this to different companies, and they complained that the escapement was too thick.

Jakeys

Thanks Archer, I'd certainly trust your expertise against my amateur internet reading, but if the beat rate reduction in the 2500/2403 wasn't reliability related, then why was it done?



Yeah, I was counting that one under movement revisions. The Railmaster AT never got the three level revision of course, though I'm quite happy with mine regardless, I don't worry about the reliability as it has been factory serviced well after these earlier problems were being ironed out.

Archer

It's been a long time wince I went through the co-axial training, but my recollection was that the changes were to improve "self starting" of the movement. In other words, to change the torque at which the movement starts to run when it has come to a stop.

SpdMastr

On a side note…your new avatar is pretty “fresh” Al 🤣