Hi all,

I recently bought my first Vintage Omega an all original Baby PloProf 166.0250 and on having it pressure tested it was discovered a rear seal was failing so whilst it obviously needed to be fixed I decided that I may as well have it serviced the only thing needing to be replaced where this failed seal and a new crown and both original parts were returned with the watch. It took longer than was expected but since I have had it back it seems to be running at a touch under 5 seconds a day fast and it doesn't seem to matter which position I rest it in when its not being worn. I know this is a 36 year old and not COSC certified but was wondering what others thought of this timekeeping. Is it good, average or bad? and here is a gratuitous picture of said watch.

IMAG0063 by Marc Obermann, on Flickr

Marc

 

Definitely good!!!!
Well I am not accuracy freak so anything better than 20s/day is good enough for me for vintage movement.

 

Five seconds a day is within COSC limits, which are -4/+6. It's customary to regulate in the plus rather than minus range. For a watch of this age I think you have done extremely well, and it reinforces the opinion of those who think that the 101x and 102x series don;t deserve the bad [press they continue to receive.

Cheers

Desmond

 

I'd be happy with that performance!

 

Keep in mind the "bad press" they get has nothing to do with accuracy (at least from my perspective). Typically these perform better accuracy wise that the much loved 550 series. Balance amplitude is usually better, as is positional variation (easier to get good results with very little tweaking), etc. For me it's the design of the dial side that is the primary problem on the 101X and 102X series...flimsy due to the desire to make this movement thin, and the parts are quite expensive to replace when they fail.

Cheers, Al

 

Hi all,

Thanks for all of your answers personally I am very happy with this accuracy and whilst it my not be a mint example I feel the ageing it has adds real character to the watch. It did take me a long time to find an example that wasn't so called NOS or with lots of service parts and just got lucky with finding this one at that right price and condition. I am really happy that the bezel is in such a nice condition as many I saw had really bad condition bezels and whilst service bezels are still available they just don't look as nice IMO plus of course they are not tritium either.

Archer

Not sure what you mean by the dial side being flimsy if you could elaborate on that for me I may well learn something new, hopefully as it just had a full service at a Official Omega Service Centre close to me here in NW London and only required a new crown to insure it was waterproof as apparently Omega no longer supply just the seal but require the crown to be replaced and the case seal that was ruined when the previous owner took the back off for pictures of the movement. The watchmaker reported the movement is in very good condition so hopefully it should serve me well and be good for many years to come. Here is a picture of the movement from the previous owner.

Baby PloProf 9 by Marc Obermann, on Flickr

Marc

 

Good point Al, and I have always seen the parts thickness issue as just another of the compromises that are made in watch design. Thickness was the bête noire of horological design at the time and I understand the initial industry revulsion for the series was because of issues with the automatic winding system as opposed to later observations in respect to the date change system or the setting mechanism.

The original issues in the early 1000 series carried over into a generalised disdain by those outside the industry - particularly in the fledgling days of watch forums - that was largely based on the earlier failures (even though the design of the movement was essentially reconceived) and the observation that the movement was "ugly". I also love the cal 71X series and the same press applies there to an extent.

My previous comments were informed by the belief that the a well-maintained 101x/102x movement can still mix it with the better of them fourty years after production. I think some of the negativity historically was by those who may have neglected service or purchased neglected pieces and then wondered why they wouldn't keep on keeping on as the thicker mid-5xx series appeared to do. The answer, to me, is simple. Fast beat ultra-thin movements have to be cared for, no matter who makes them. For example, many collectors are enamoured by the Piaget 12P automatic series, but it can be a real dog if not regularly serviced. Strangely the chattering classes are generally silent on that issue and the movement has enjoyed reasonable press.

I still believe that the best comparison to make is not so much with the mid-5xx series but with the other premium fastbeat of the time, the Rolex calibre 3035, which in the opinion of quite a few non Rolex fanboys was an accident waiting to happen.

Regards

Desmond

 

My only Omega has the 1012 movement and after 9 days it is 11 seconds slow. That's more than acceptable. I adjusted it myself using an Android app called WildSpectra Mobile Pro that has a beat counting feature. I notice that the watch runs slightly fast when well wound and slightly slow when run down. I'm new to the Omega scene but from what I have read it was the 1000 series movements that had problems and those were fixed in the 101X and 102X movements.

 

Yes the compromises made were regarding the thickness of the movement. Well maintained they are not a "problem" at least in my experience, but the cannon pinion design on this one is certainly not my favourite. It is rather ugly as movements go, and there are a lot of parts that are not particularly well finished, but again as Desmond points out it was a product of it's time.

Cheers, Al

 

The oscillating weight axle wears out very quickly and is riveted to the weight itself.

 

I think the 1570 is riveted as well but believe the problem lies more in the realms of metallurgy.

 

I'm going back in time but apart from the rotor assembly issues, worn reversers, damaged axels, cracked jewels, entangled hairsprings and other wear problems were main concerns.

It always amazed me after observing what a huge hole Omega dug itself with the 1001 how Rolex somehow escaped the same fate. I think it was simply a case of Rolex having the better advertising agency.

Cheers

Desmond

 

Rolex have certainly had the edge on marketing, not many companies have had more success with branding.

And despite Omega's recent efforts, they still own Bond, James Bond.