First of all, glad to be part of this forum! Been reading every once in a while but never really posted anything until today so please forgive my ignorance. Tried using the search bar also to hopefully not duplicate an old thread but didn't really find what I was looking for. So as per the title, just how good is the new movement compared to 9300? Does having "master" status justify the price? Is it even practical in real life? Of course knowing that there were a few tweaks and now has METAS certification. I'm asking because i'm contemplating of getting my hands on a PO and have been stuck choosing between these:

215.30.46.51.01.002 vs. 232.30.46.51.01.002
Love the orange on the new one but a bit skeptical about the caoutchouc and how it will hold up after use. The older version is better price wise but unsure if going back to 9300 is a smart move.

215.30.46.51.03.001 vs. 232.90.46.51.03.001
I already had my heart set for the ones above then after doing some extra research the blue one looks amazing! Can't really justify the one with sedna so not including that here. I'm a sucker for titanium but I guess how much lighter is it than the stainless steel one? And again, next question is 9300 vs. 9900 movement.

Any words of wisdom would be very much appreciated!

Rex

 

Have not seen any technical information released yet on the 9900 movement, so details about what the real differences are scarce....

 

I also got the feeling we are talking "whiter-than-white" detergent ads arguments here ...

"every gen. is better than the one before and it's unfathomable how we could live before the co-axes" (sarcasm) ... and yet you open a 60ies conny and those movements are beautiful and still can run COSC easily after 50 years ...

so take it with a grain of salt ...

(the same is true for Rolex calibers as well).

I think most of those "improvements" are rather marketing induced than technically because the earlier one was not good or had a flaw ...

if you look at automotive - there are huge advances between a 1960ies car and a 2016 ... in mechanical watches ... not so much ...

 

Lol I think you're underestimating the impact (pun intended) of the Si14 balance. My in-house Omegas are far more durable than my older calibre watches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

your Si14 balance Omegas already held up 60+ years .... and in a far more durable way than the old ones?

 

You won't need 60+ years to prove that the Si balance spring is more dimensionally stable and shock resistant than a Nivarox spring is. It requires no adjusting, and comes out of the manufacturing process perfect, and stays that way. It will take abuse right now that a Nivarox spring will not take - that's a fact.

Yes, I understand that marketing plays a big role in watches these days with everything "new and improved" but in the case of the Si balance spring, it's not a stretch.

 

The silicon thing fascinates me. I have watches with and without it so not really advocating one way or the other. I'm curious as to what you think about the comments of some of the big name independent watchmakers who won't use silicon. Kari Voutilainen and FP Journe have both gone on record saying they don't like using it. Journe in particular said he tested silicon parts but that they were brittle and he worried about availability of parts in the future because they won't last 'generations'. Obviously a much different scale here, but always curious to hear from professionals in the field as to your thoughts - thanks!

 

I can only speak from my own experience with Omega balance springs specifically. I had similar concerns about how "brittle" they might be, until I attended some training at Omega where they had one we could handle. I asked the instructor about how durable they were, and he told me to pick up my tweezers, grab the balance spring stud, and stretch the balance spring up from the balance until it was a straight line - this would destroy a traditional metallic balance spring, but the silicon spring went right back to it's normal spiral shape after I did this. That pretty much put to rest any concerns I had about the durability of these springs.

I have no idea about Journe and his concerns, and although I've met Kari (one of the nicest guys on the planet IMO) we didn't discuss this specifically as I was more concerned about discussing finishing techniques at the time, so I don't know what concerns he might have. No watch part lasts forever, and I understand the reluctance on the part of some to venture into this territory that seems to have little to do with traditional watchmaking, and it certainly takes a bit of the "hands on" skill out of getting a watch to run well. I would not expect low volume producers like these guys who feature a lot of hand work in their watches to embrace this sort of technology, but for the mid-level massed produced watches like Omega, Rolex, etc., I think it will become quite common.

The fact is Nivarox still makes something like 90% of the balance springs used in the Swiss watch industry, so most companies still rely on someone else to make their balance springs.

 

That is amazing. Had no idea they had that kind of shape retention.

Prompted me to turn over my speedmaster 57 and stare at the Si14 spring.

 

I don't believe new designs take away from how good their older ones trully were, but I do believe that the improvements made by Omega will be seen in 60 years, most will be in even better shape than the old ones are now. I really like that aspect of watches, watching them age through your lifetime.

 

... well the improvement they made to the cal 1120 (in form of a 2500a, b or c type escapement) will probably not be found on that list ... even though they did worldwide campaigning, made some heavy handed claims (that nobody now dares to repeat from omega) ... it took them many years to deliver - only partly - what they promised.

my point: they will always name any change an "improvement" .... some will be good - some not ...

I'd rather sit back and let others find out first ... its not that the non-improved watches are all cr@p

 

I might actually just hold off splurging until I see reviews on the newer models. Unless of course if I find a titanium PO here then I might just pull the trigger That thing is a beauty

 

Does anyone know, whether the new, 9900 version, still have 22mm lugs, or did they change it?

 

Should still be 22mm. I can tell you for sure when I get mine next week [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Who refers to Omega watches by their overly long reference number?
Rolex is somewhat forgivable with 5-6 digits...
But even then... Unless it's a 1661X I'm lost.

You took the time and effort to find and transcribe the reference numbers... but couldn't cut and paste a picture?

 

Finally arrived yesterday... All I can say is, i'm in love!

PS: It's this one 215.30.46.51.03.001

 

May I ask how much is it? Is it comparable to the one from Jomashop?

 

Outstanding!!!
Fantastic choice!
Congratulations!!!

 

Congrats, I'm really thinking of changing my 9300 POC to this one.
Is the datewheel blue? Can you post more pictures?

 

Yes I measured it... 22mm lugs indeed!

And yes the date wheel is blue (although lighting here in the room is a bit dark). I'll certainly post more pics later.