I can’t help but think Omega simply wanted to get something Rolex didn’t have/couldn’t get and I think that’s a shame. They should’ve focused on innovation where it provided a real benefit and had faith in the brand and product.
I’m happy to be corrected there and as I was tying it I did think ‘I bet the barrel wear has nothing to do with the escapement’.
However, I stand by my point around an over complicated solution, that restricts servicing options, for an imaginary problem.
I’ve said it before and I stand by it. The coaxial escapement is an unnecessary, over complicated solution to a problem that didn’t exist.
I mean... ignoring everything I just wrote- wouldn't most of us agree that luxury items in of themselves are solutions to problems that don't have to exist?
Agreed on this. The 2500d is a really excellent movement and, unlike the newer generation co-axial calibers, it can into fit a case with a relatively slim profile.
So is a mechanical watch at all for about 99.7% of the population. With all things relative- the co-axial escapement is subjectively "good" simply because it is "different" than what other mechanical watches use, and therefore it is "exclusive."
There's nothing better about Rolex (for example) except for exclusivity (again- with all things being relative). People choose different brands for a variety of different reasons.
I mean... ignoring everything I just wrote- wouldn't most of us agree that luxury items in of themselves are solutions to problems that don't have to exist? Same thing really applies to cost:benefit- when it comes to luxury items this doesn't even begin to be a big part of the equation.
Completely disagree. A mechanical watch was a necessary solution to a very real problem several decades ago, which is one of the reasons I like vintage watches. The solution is now out of date and has been superseded but when it was invented it absolutely was solving a genuine problem.
The coaxial escapement was never a solution to a genuine oroblem
Agreed on this. The 2500d is a really excellent movement and, unlike the newer generation co-axial calibers, it can into fit a case with a relatively slim profile.
It was. It was supposed to reduce (or completely remove) friction in the escapement, eliminating to need of lubrication, which would result in better timekeeping.
George Daniels, the inventor, claimed it worked but when Omega started mass producing co-axial movements it apparently didn't.
So there’s two sides, Omegas coaxial either;
A) doesn’t solve a problem that does exist, and/or
B) does solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Either way, there’s no benefit to it. It’s a white elephant.
Or:
C) It's an alternative to the lever escapement that works just as well, regardless of whether or not there is a problem to solve
It seems to work just as well but is more complicated to service and maintain while offering no additional benefits. So there are negatives and no positives.
I’m not referring to cost of service that’s set by various factors unrelated to complexity.
It’s hard to accept the argument that the coaxial isn’t more complicated to service when most untrained Watchmakers can’t effectively service it and even Omega certified ones need specific tools and additional training. Going back to the start, one of my major issues is future serviceability options if Omega decides to stop using it.
I’d be interested to hear from Al whether the coaxial is actually more complex/difficult to service or simply different to a Swiss lever escapement, but the impact is the same - less servicing options for the end user.
Just purely for my own curiosity, do you own or have you ever owned an Omega model with a co-axial caliber or is this purely an academic discussion based upon your engineering background?
