Community Stories

Best and durable Omega movement now?

Davidt
Posts
11,503
Likes
20,141
As a further build, if Al or another experienced Omega watchmaker were to say “actually, it’s not any more complex, difficult or time consuming to service and regulate, it’s just different, and actually, given the number now in circulation there’s no reason why more independents couldn’t begin to service them” then I think that’s fair enough. There no gain from the coaxial but no ‘cost’ either.

My issue is that there does seem to be a ‘cost’ associated with reinventing the wheel, with added complexity and additional requirements for servicing that restrict options for the owner, now and in the future, for no added benefit.
 
gbesq
Posts
9,052
Likes
46,922
My independent watchmaker has the training and tools and services them. I’ll have to ask him his opinion the next time I’m in his shop.
 
Aroxx
Posts
2,721
Likes
11,997
David brings up many interesting points I had not considered. I was under the impression the co-axial requires less lubrication and offers longer service intervals. For example the new Speedmaster is recommended at 8 years. Is that not the case?

If a piece worn in rotation could safely go 10 years instead of 5 for example the service cost savings could add up. Not to devolve into another service intervals strategy thread.
 
Davidt
Posts
11,503
Likes
20,141
gbesq gbesq
My independent watchmaker has the training and tools and services them. I’ll have to ask him his opinion the next time I’m in his shop.

Id be interested to hear his views. Particularly if it tips me over towards buying one!
 
Davidt
Posts
11,503
Likes
20,141
Aroxx Aroxx
David brings up many interesting points I had not considered. I was under the impression the co-axial requires less lubrication and offers longer service intervals. For example the new Speedmaster is recommended at 8 years. Is that not the case?

If a piece worn in rotation could safely go 10 years instead of 5 for example the service cost savings could add up. Not to devolve into another service intervals strategy thread.

Im no watchmaker, but my understanding is the service interval is not impacted by whether the watch has a coaxial escapement or other type. Other wear prone parts of the movement still require servicing, even if the escapement itself is able to go longer between services (and I’m not sure if this is actually the case anyway).
 
Aroxx
Posts
2,721
Likes
11,997
Davidt Davidt
Im no watchmaker, but my understanding is the service interval is not impacted by whether the watch has a coaxial escapement or other type. Other wear prone parts of the movement still require servicing, even if the escapement itself is able to go longer between services (and I’m not sure if this is actually the case anyway).
Good point about the other components. My understanding is the co-axial escapement greatly reduces friction and needs very minimal lubrication therefore it can go longer intervals. Maybe I’m just muddying the waters. I hope Al is drafting a long post as we speak. 🍿
 
gbesq
Posts
9,052
Likes
46,922
I think that Davidt is correct that other components of the co-axial movement still require lubrication at more frequent intervals than the escapement itself. I am speaking anecdotally, but my own experience with the two Omega co-axial watches that I have owned - a SMPc with the 2500d and the Seamaster 300 with the 8900 - is that the co-axial movements are very reliable and without question the most accurate mechanical watches that I have owned - and I’ve owned plenty. My girlfriend wears a DeVille Prestige with the 2500d and has had the same experience - 5+ years of daily wear with no reliability issues and quartz like accuracy.
 
S
Posts
83
Likes
16
Interesting question...
At the beginning Omega told us that with Co-axial escapement our service intervals could be longer. It was claimed up to 8 years ...??
Today is 2023... we have Oris with 10 years warranty, Rolex with service interval 10 years..
Of course we have questions now..
I have read a lot about Co-axial and independent watchmakers couldnt answer whether it brings benefits or not.. It's just different. That's all I guess. Its definitely more problematic to service and you need to go either to official service or a man who is qualified for .. so we have some limitations.

All in all I have to say that Omega service price approx the same level as Tudor with usual escapement.. and they respect their customers. If you have a trouble and the watch has to go Switzerland they help you. I am not sure about Rolex.. but I guess it's worse.
 
pdxleaf
Posts
5,050
Likes
17,581
Aroxx Aroxx
Good point about the other components. My understanding is the co-axial escapement greatly reduces friction and needs very minimal lubrication therefore it can go longer intervals. Maybe I’m just muddying the waters. I hope Al is drafting a long post as we speak. 🍿

Regarding the 3861, in an older thread, Al noted that Omega had adjusted some oiling procedures to avoid premature wear that had occurred on early production 3861 watches.

See https://omegaforums.net/threads/386...e-read-first-post.120071/page-12#post-1820792

A question came up about whether this updated oiling schedule would shorten the service interval of the new 3861, thus removing some of the benefits of the 3861.

Not sure if it was confirmed that the 3861 actually has a longer service interval or not.
 
sonicosa
Posts
966
Likes
2,331
josiahg52 josiahg52
I like these posts by Archer…

These were great to read through, thanks for sharing. I’ll have to watch the video with Roger Smith in the last link when I have some time.

I’m interested if watchmakers think the coaxial escapement provides enough benefit to warrant the additional complication (although Archer did hint at his views earlier in this thread), or if it’s more of a marketing purpose than true innovation like David says.
 
Archer
Posts
27,573
Likes
70,182
pdxleaf pdxleaf
Not sure if it was confirmed that the 3861 actually has a longer service interval or not.

Service intervals for all Omega watches are the same. I think Omega says 5-8 years depending on use. They have never really given service intervals for individual movements...
 
S
Posts
83
Likes
16
When I enter the Oris store they claim me 10 years service for new calibers. You may think about Rolex as well its 10 years.
Do they say anything about escapement and friction? No! They simply give you that service interval.
It's different from Omega. Everyone knows about Co-axial and we have a lot of discussion around. and hey.. Up to 8 years and 10 years above. That's a difference. I understand that Oris caliber or even Rolex may not be better calibers than Omega but at least it is what you see and what they say

Thank you for the links to read!
 
padders
Posts
9,638
Likes
15,198
S Speedy13
Interesting question...
At the beginning Omega told us that with Co-axial escapement our service intervals could be longer. It was claimed up to 8 years ...??
Today is 2023... we have Oris with 10 years warranty, Rolex with service interval 10 years..
Of course we have questions now..
I have read a lot about Co-axial and independent watchmakers couldnt answer whether it brings benefits or not.. It's just different. That's all I guess. Its definitely more problematic to service and you need to go either to official service or a man who is qualified for .. so we have some limitations.

All in all I have to say that Omega service price approx the same level as Tudor with usual escapement.. and they respect their customers. If you have a trouble and the watch has to go Switzerland they help you. I am not sure about Rolex.. but I guess it's worse.
It is true that many manufacturers are now offering warranties longer than the traditional ‘service every 5 years’ recommendation but I’m not sure that is reflective of a massive jump in reliability. Some of these brands including Cartier, Oris and several others are offering long warranties on fairly standard ETA movements (or near identical clones of them). I have a Cartier with a 8 year warranty on a 2892 for instance. Lubrication may have improved but the movements themselves haven’t changed hugely in decades so I’m not sure the increase in warranty truly suggests an increase in necessary service interval. Some brands may well be pricing in an increase in remedial servicing under warranty into the purchase cost to allow a large increase in warranty duration.
 
Archer
Posts
27,573
Likes
70,182
S Speedy13
When I enter the Oris store they claim me 10 years service for new calibers. You may think about Rolex as well its 10 years.
Do they say anything about escapement and friction? No! They simply give you that service interval.
It's different from Omega. Everyone knows about Co-axial and we have a lot of discussion around. and hey.. Up to 8 years and 10 years above. That's a difference. I understand that Oris caliber or even Rolex may not be better calibers than Omega but at least it is what you see and what they say

Thank you for the links to read!

Recommended service intervals, and lengths of warranties, are primarily marketing decisions rather than engineering/watchmaking decisions.

For example, when Rolex increased the warranty to 5 years, they had a flood of extra work - people will live with something when they have to pay to fix it, but will jump on the chance to fix it for free. Service centers had to hire extra people to take up the volume of repairs that came in. When they increased the recommended service interval to 10 years, it simply reflected what the majority of their customers were already doing - waiting 10+ years before taking it in for servicing. There is no magic bullet here - it's just playing with the numbers to make it seem like there is.

When you buy a car you get 4 years of "free" regular maintenance - that you paid for in the price of the car. What happens in the watch industry is no different.
 
gbesq
Posts
9,052
Likes
46,922
So, Al, what are your thoughts on the co-axial movements? Are they any better, or worse, than watches using the traditional lever escapement in terms or reliability, service intervals, or serviceability? Advantages, if any? Disadvantages? Is it all just marketing hype or do the co-axials represent a genuine and useful step forward in technology?
 
Archer
Posts
27,573
Likes
70,182
gbesq gbesq
So, Al, what are your thoughts on the co-axial movements? Are they any better, or worse, than watches using the traditional lever escapement in terms or reliability, service intervals, or serviceability? Advantages, if any? Disadvantages? Is it all just marketing hype or do the co-axials represent a genuine and useful step forward in technology?

I've not done any detailed studies myself, but comparing the one Omega movement that the only change made to the movement was to add the co-axial, it offered no performance benefits over the Swiss lever escapement version. That's a comparison of the Cal. 3303 to the 3313.

On the 2500's, not only did the escapement change, but the balance went from using a regulator on the 1120 to being free sprung on the 2500, so it's not an exact comparison. Having said that, the performance of the 2500's were no better than the 1120.

I always found that other errors swamped out whatever accuracy benefits that the co-axial might have offered. When I did the training with Omega, they were clear - this escapement wasn't about accuracy, but increased service intervals. In reality though, the service intervals aren't any different on these than what I see on any other watch.

If you read the threads linked above, it's clear that this reduces the choices for servicing, but if you use the factory anyway, that's not a big deal.
 
S
Posts
83
Likes
16
Archer Archer
I've not done any detailed studies myself, but comparing the one Omega movement that the only change made to the movement was to add the co-axial, it offered no performance benefits over the Swiss lever escapement version. That's a comparison of the Cal. 3303 to the 3313.

On the 2500's, not only did the escapement change, but the balance went from using a regulator on the 1120 to being free sprung on the 2500, so it's not an exact comparison. Having said that, the performance of the 2500's were no better than the 1120.

So basically the amount of parts you have changed on 1120 and 2500... You mean the other parts mostly have the same wear and it's nothing different. ? Is it right?
They say our co-axial is all about better stability during lifecycle. Is it a myth? Could we say that normal escapement wears pretty much the same?
We could mention that some manufactures could change the whole movement (that's happen, and I guess that's happen to Tudor, Oris) after some period and I know that it's not the case with Omega.
From your point of view and your experience did you change less or more parts in 2500, 8500, 3313 in comparison to most other movements like Rolex or ETA movements? Or it's pretty much the same?
Thank you for response!
 
75 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

DON

Vintage Omega movement parts - 30 mm, bumper and some full rotor

DON Watch Parts and Accessories For Sale
DON
DON
Posts
7
Views
2K
DON

Vintage Omega movement parts - 30 mm, bump and some full rotor

DON Watch Parts and Accessories For Sale
DON
DON
Posts
0
Views
1K
DON

Vintage Omega movement parts

DON Watch Parts and Accessories For Sale
DON
DON
Posts
4
Views
3K
ccels5765

Omega Speedy - what’s the best and why?

ccels5765 Modern Omega Watches
ErichPryde
ErichPryde
Posts
15
Views
3K
K

No Omega movement, but ETA

Kenrick Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
Archer
Archer
Posts
9
Views
2K
DON

vintage Omega movement parts and indexes - 30 mm and bumper

DON Watch Parts and Accessories For Sale
DON
DON
Posts
5
Views
2K