Forums Latest Members
  1. watchmavan Jul 10, 2017

    Posts
    41
    Likes
    83
    First the disclaimer.

    I'm not trolling or bagging Omega. I am just wanting a fuller understanding. So here goes,

    If the co-axial movement is made albeit exclusively for Omega by ETA, why is it an in-house movement. Given that ETA is part of the same group it is still a separate company. In the same way, Hamilton use movements made by ETA exclusively for them but they are not referred to as in-house?
     
    Edited Jul 10, 2017
  2. padders Oooo subtitles! Jul 10, 2017

    Posts
    8,931
    Likes
    13,873
    There are Co-axial movements which are considered fully in house and there are those which are not. The 2500 movement as fitted to the SMP and others is in effect a heavily modified ETA 2892. The 8500, 8800, 8900 and 9300 movements and developments thereof are not based on any existing ETA models and were clean sheet designs, used only by Omega and no-one else. I am not actually sure who assembles them but I think I am right in saying that it is done in house by Omega rather than by ETA who are as you say very closely linked in any event. I am certain I will be corrected imminently if I have made any false assumptions here. Does this help?
     
    watchmavan and Nobel Prize like this.
  3. akshayluc420 Jul 10, 2017

    Posts
    559
    Likes
    1,159
    From what I understand, @padders has it right, the designs are all Omega and movements are used only in their watches. My understanding is that the Omega movements are built in an ETA factory, however Omega has a dedicated line, staff and engineers solely for themselves.

    It's like buying groceries and bringing your own pots and pans and cooking up a dinner at your friends' house. Your raw ingredients and know-how, just under their roof.
     
  4. ras47 Jul 10, 2017

    Posts
    1,798
    Likes
    10,081
  5. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Jul 10, 2017

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,053
    The 9300 is not based on an ETA movement.

    There is no universally accepted definition of what "in-house" actually means.

    I am puzzled why the fact that Omega (part of the Swatch group as is ETA) using the resources available to them that being part of a big conglomerate offers, is such a contentious issue with some people. As a publicly traded company that is beholden to shareholders, taking advantage of the vast resources at your disposal to produce movements or parts of movements is the right thing to do.

    Building a brand new facility to assemble movements when you have excess capacity at existing facilities would be bad business, pure and simple. It's all the same company - does it really matter who's name is on the building? Does this really make a big difference in the end product?

    [​IMG]

    Up until fairly recently, Rolex used balance springs made by Nivarox-FAR, a Swatch group company - so did 90% of all Swiss watchmakers. Although the Rolex movement factory had Rolex on the outside, it was actually not owned by Rolex up until a few years ago...it was still owned by Aegler, who made the movements exclusively for Rolex.

    This whole "in-house" craze is a marketing tool to create exclusivity, and has little to do with the actual quality of the product produced. It's a very recent thing in the context of Swiss watchmaking, which was built on small subcontractors making parts for the larger companies.

    I've owned 3 BMW's that were assembled in North Carolina - they were still BMW's, still German cars, and were just as good as the other's I've owned that were built in Germany...

    Cheers, Al
     
  6. Vanquish1551 Jul 10, 2017

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    8
    The entire swiss watch industry was built on a system of specialists each crafting various components. Dial specialists like Singer, balance spring specialists, case specialists, etc. Each sub contractor usually sold to a number of brands. Numerous other industries like European automobiles followed the same "cottage industry" formula. I have no issue with it. Does a Valjoux movement in a vintage Rolex make it any less desirable or valuable?
     
  7. w.finkenstaedt Jul 10, 2017

    Posts
    680
    Likes
    728
    That Valjoux 72 Daytona is probably worth many, many times what an in-house Rolex is. Ditto for the El Primero Daytonas.

    Omega as a brand was known for movement manufacture before the quartz crisis. It's really only in recent years that that reputation has started to come back.
     
  8. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Jul 10, 2017

    Posts
    17,045
    Likes
    25,211
    dont forget the F Piaget based 3313 co axial.
     
  9. Meme-Dweller Jul 10, 2017

    Posts
    1,873
    Likes
    2,953
     
    1sat7n.jpg
    powderstick, watch3s and wsfarrell like this.
  10. w.finkenstaedt Jul 11, 2017

    Posts
    680
    Likes
    728
    You mean Frederic Piguet. [emoji1360]
     
    Foo2rama likes this.
  11. watchmavan Jul 12, 2017

    Posts
    41
    Likes
    83
    From the OP the question was purely for interest. The replies so far have also been interesting. For the purpose of a general idea of in-house, I'd say so far from what I've read that the first Co-axial movements were in fact mods to existing ETA movements, and perhaps more outside than in-house. The scope of the redesign from ground up under Omega (even if under the ETA roof) of the 8500 and later calibres are more in-house than not and should be considered so.

    As for the fascination with in-house, I tend to agree with most sentiments expressed so far in that there is perhaps too much read into them.

    I do find it both interesting and puzling /predictable that any discussion about the quality of Omega/Rolex end up including the other.

    Thank you all.
     
  12. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Jul 12, 2017

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,053
    I'm surprised you would find it puzzling. In the mid-level brands Omega and Rolex are the 2 biggest in terms of presence in the marketplace, and they compete directly with each other. Rolex is often held up by those who are only superficially aware of their history (the majority of owners I would say) as being a prime example of what "in-house" embodies.

    No reflection on you because I don't know you at all, but it's also often Rolex fans in my experience who ask these sorts of questions.

    Cheers, Al
     
    watch3s and ac106 like this.
  13. SeanO Jul 12, 2017

    Posts
    1,306
    Likes
    1,443
    usually trying to understand why they've suffered an extra zero on the cost of the watch.
     
  14. Wills Jul 12, 2017

    Posts
    44
    Likes
    40
    Great post
     
  15. watchmavan Jul 12, 2017

    Posts
    41
    Likes
    83
    I'm very aware of Rolex history. Their only claim to in-house is buying supplier companies. While I do own a Rolex I also own an Omega. I might also add that one of my favourite pieces is Tag Heuer Aquaracer, a brand generally considered by Rolex owners to be beneath them. [emoji12]
     
    Edited Jul 12, 2017
  16. bnabod Jul 12, 2017

    Posts
    372
    Likes
    1,987

    So Al, based on your experience what would you rate as the best movement for a three hander and best movement for a manual chrono manual and chrono auto?
     
    ctime3 likes this.