Do IWC vintage watches trump (no pun intended) vintage Seamasters?

Archer · Jul 21, 2020

mikeo1
MikeMan--Very,very nice with a tiffany touch as well !!

Here's the omega coaxial overview--"George who?"😉

I know who he is, and since I service watches with co-axial movements, and have been trained by Omega on them, I think I understand them pretty well.

Still not sure how you conclude that Omega "extorted" the co-axial escapement from Omega...

So you are upset that he didn't get mentioned in a promo video?

mikeo1 · Jul 21, 2020

Not

Archer
I know who he is, and since I service watches with co-axial movements, and have been trained by Omega on them, I think I understand them pretty well.

Still not sure how you conclude that Omega "extorted" the co-axial escapement from Omega...

So you are upset that he didn't get mentioned in a promo video?

Not upset-just saying

You might enjoy the following-if you haven't already seen it (george's perspective)

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B06Y39YSC4/ref=atv_wl_hom_c_unkc_1_14

Archer · Jul 21, 2020

mikeo1
Not upset-just saying

You might enjoy the following-if you haven't already seen it (george's perspective)

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B06Y39YSC4/ref=atv_wl_hom_c_unkc_1_14

I've seen it. There's nothing in there that even hints that George was "extorted" by Omega, so again this statement is puzzling.

There's some frankly hilarious hyperbole in that film...

“The first new horological development in 250 years, and widely accepted as the most important of the 20th century.”

This certainly doesn't apply to the co-axial escapement, but would be more likely to apply to the quartz movement.

“For 250 years Mudge’s lever escapement reigned supreme”

It still does...

There's a fair bit of "legend" surrounding the co-axial escapement that really doesn't match reality. Rather than repeat it here, you should read this thread...

https://omegaforums.net/threads/video-of-george-daniels.93671/#post-1395348

mikeo1 · Jul 21, 2020

Archer-I read the article as well as your take on the Roger Smith's presentation (which seemed a bit "catty" to me)

My use of the term "extorted" might have been a bit severe but Daniels (as I recall) rec'd his patent in 1990 and shopped it around for about 10 years (had to be both fatiguing and a most disappointing/desperate process for a guy with a great idea) visiting all the "players' on multiple occasions until Omega (actually not Omega directly but swatch group's CEO Nick Hayek) picked it up for Omega in 1999...when Omega initially introduced it (in a modified ETA 2892 movement) it was my impression that they were hard pressed to give Daniels any credit until the horological community sort of embarrassed them into it.....

While I would be quick to give big kudos to Omega for commercializing the co-axial (I would think no small task) escapement I don't think they deserve any consideration for the design aspect (which it appears to me as the marketing department still hasn't discovered).

All thrown in a barrel, I prefer to consider the following separations

-Timekeeping (atomic clock/quartz watch/mechanical watch/...sun)

-Materials (constant improvements to the performance of existing designs // would include advanced lubricants/silicon hairsprings/diapals/oscillators, the list goes on and I must add I'm tempted to throw the quartz crystal in here as well)

-Mechanical design (detent/cylinder/duplex/lever/coaxial/friction rest)

-ART (how it's all put together-sometimes inside/sometimes outside) which is actually the money shot--Daniels is watch art to me/ GO's caliber 61 is chronograph watch art to me. I know everyone here has their watch art which is how this thread started.

Dan S · Jul 21, 2020

I have some experience with patents. If someone shops a patent around for 9 years (half of the lifetime of a US utility patent), then the value of that patent is probably not enormous. Everyone who develops and patents a new technology thinks that it is the cat's meow. However, if you pitch it repeatedly and people don't jump on it ... there is probably a good reason. Great idea? Maybe, or maybe not. Many things that sound great in theory don't work out as well in practice in a mass production setting, where they need to be warrantied and maintained. Especially when you are competing with a mature technology that is already excellent. To be honest, the main value of the coaxial movement is actually related to marketing, since it allows Omega to claim that it is in the vanguard of horological technology. In practice, I suspect there's not much reason to use a coaxial movement, and I don't imagine you will find many other companies rushing to use it once the patent expires (if it hasn't already). Time will tell.

There are theoretical claims about the benefits of the coaxial movement, but I think that people who work with them on a daily basis understand that the practical benefits are perhaps not quite as great as the theoretical benefits. I think I heard that they theoretically didn't need lubrication, but that didn't quite pan out. They need a little bit of lubrication ... but not too much or they won't work correctly. And the fact that they require a high level of training to service and lubricate properly is not a point in their favor. I can list many examples of technologies that are theoretically superior but have not gained favor because they lack robustness, are difficult to manufacture/maintain, etc.

Archer · Jul 22, 2020

mikeo1
My use of the term "extorted" might have been a bit severe

Thanks - now we are getting somewhere. I don't believe anyone was holding a gun to Daniels head to make him sell it to Omega, so putting forward the idea that Omega acted inappropriately is simply not on.

mikeo1
but Daniels (as I recall) rec'd his patent in 1990 and shopped it around for about 10 years (had to be both fatiguing and a most disappointing/desperate process for a guy with a great idea) visiting all the "players' on multiple occasions until Omega (actually not Omega directly but swatch group's CEO Nick Hayek) picked it up for Omega in 1999...when Omega initially introduced it (in a modified ETA 2892 movement) it was my impression that they were hard pressed to give Daniels any credit until the horological community sort of embarrassed them into it.....

Yes I know the history, and what you wrote should tell you what you need to know - having to shop it around and finally someone bought it - this tells you right away (as Dan noted) that is wasn't exactly a barn burner of an idea. And why would they put Daniels front and center in their marketing of it, as you seem to feel is required? It's not the George Daniels watch company on the watches that are being made.

mikeo1
While I would be quick to give big kudos to Omega for commercializing the co-axial (I would think no small task) escapement I don't think they deserve any consideration for the design aspect (which it appears to me as the marketing department still hasn't discovered).

Taking a rather problematic and finnicky escapement design that had been used in a few dozen watches, all tweaked extensively by hand to get them to work, using impractical methods and materials for mass production, and turning into a (fairly) reliable massed produced escapement made in the hundreds of thousands per year using completely different materials, is certainly no small feat. That's what Omega did.

This was an obscure escapement that no one really wanted, and Omega took a chance on it. In the end, it's purely a marketing play, so of course Omega is going to claim is as their own, just like Rolex claims all their innovations (that they bought from others) as their own, as does every watch company.

Oh yes there's no friction in this escapement, right? Sure...

The thin pointed tip of the co-axial wheel teeth going over the sharp corner of the pallet fork stone can chew the wheel up pretty badly.

And the upper teeth wear also:

I have this discussion fairly often with Google experts who have no hands on experience, so yes if I seem catty it's because nothing in this discussion is anything new, except the claim that Omega "extorted" Daniels...

Cheers, Al

STANDY · Jul 22, 2020

Never been one for the Coaxial Kool-aid.
I’m happy with the ETA 2824-2 which like a coaxial is nowhere near as precise as a Quartz watch

lindo · Jul 22, 2020

STANDY
Never been one for the Coaxial Kool-aid.
I’m happy with the ETA 2824-2 which like a coaxial is nowhere near as precise as a Quartz watch

I agree, having examples of both - but I also like to see movements that stretch the technology, in the same way that I like to see movements which have been finely finished. I love having the backs off my vintage Omega Constellations, and looking at modern movements through sapphire crystal backs.

I could venture a disparaging comment about the plain appearance of Rolex movements, but that is a step too far in a thread which is already well outside its boundaries......

STANDY · Jul 22, 2020

lindo
I agree, having examples of both - but I also like to see movements that stretch the technology, in the same way that I like to see movements which have been finely finished. I love having the backs off my vintage Omega Constellations, and looking at modern movements through sapphire crystal backs.

I could venture a disparaging comment about the plain appearance of Rolex movements, but that is a step too far in a thread which is already well outside its boundaries......

Do enjoy a nice Looking movement. But basically have 10-15 different branded vintage watches with a just as big a range of movements in manual wind, bumper and rotor Automatics and they all run within -10 to +10 (many, actually most if not even better) and that does me.

As I mentioned earlier on in thread, probably not trumps but is on par with.

Funny thing when you have probably 50 brands with pretty much similar performance in movements it’s all about the Marketing pissing competition. Worked as a Marketing rep for a cigarette company in the day and they were the kings of marketing pissing competitions 😉

JwRosenthal · Jul 22, 2020

STANDY
Do enjoy a nice Looking movement. But basically have 10-15 different branded vintage watches with a just as big a range of movements in manual wind, bumper and rotor Automatics and they all run within -10 to +10 (many, actually most if not even better) and that does me.

As I mentioned earlier on in thread, probably not trumps but is on par with.

Funny thing when you have probably 50 brands with pretty much similar performance in movements it’s all about the Marketing pissing competition. Worked as a Marketing rep for a cigarette company in the day and they were the kings of marketing pissing competitions 😉

mikeo1 · Jul 22, 2020

Archer/Dan-

So if I boil it down into simple terms-Omega bought this lousy co-axial patent from Daniels and it surprisingly turns out to be the primary differentiator between Omega movements and the rest of the market for the last 10-20 years?

Thanks for the video/pictures; I was surprised by the real world wear. How old was the example? If it's not already; do you think a tungsten carbide wheel would offer any improvement?

If pointed towards me, the "Google experts" comment may have been misdirected, I've been repairing and restoring watches for more than 30 years - just never had the time to talk about it as much as some. I'll certainly admit I admire the Daniels/Smith "hand made approach" and have a fair understanding of the difference between making a watch and repairing one (kool-aid/lubrication aside). My comments were made in earnest.

Archer · Jul 22, 2020

mikeo1
So if I boil it down into simple terms-Omega bought this lousy co-axial patent from Daniels and it surprisingly turns out to be the primary differentiator between Omega movements and the rest of the market for the last 10-20 years?

Well aside from the catty nature of this, yes. 😀

mikeo1
Thanks for the video/pictures; I was surprised by the real world wear. How old was the example? If it's not already; do you think a tungsten carbide wheel would offer any improvement?

Not one example - replacing co-axial wheels is pretty common on these. These watches were getting their first service after being bought new for the most part, so most were in the 5 to 8 year time span I would say, so pretty typical with how people service things - when there's a problem.

Lots were still coming in with the black sticky residue on the intermediate co-axial wheels, so I was seeing a lot of these at the time.

Tungsten carbide would likely be too heavy from an inertia standpoint.

mikeo1
If pointed towards me, the "Google experts" comment may have been misdirected, I've been repairing and restoring watches for more than 30 years - just never had the time to talk about it as much as some. I'll certainly admit I admire the Daniels/Smith "hand made approach" and have a fair understanding of the difference between making a watch and repairing one (kool-aid/lubrication aside). My comments were made in earnest.

Okay that's good - hobbyist or professional? Have you ever serviced a co-axial escapement watch?

I'll ask you a question - how many watches do you get in for servicing, where the ONLY issue is that the lubrication on the escapement is gone, and absolutely everything else is good? I can tell you my total = 0

How often do you replace escape wheels for worn teeth? I rarely need to replace them - maybe one a year to be very generous out of hundreds of watches serviced.

I can tell you that having serviced many co-axial watches, there is no real advantage to the co-axial in practical terms in my eyes - not service intervals or accuracy.

A direct comparison is the 3301/3303 movements (lever) compared to the 3313 (co-axial) and in servicing both of these, no difference in accuracy. The accuracy seen today comes from the silicon balance spring, because as I'm sure you know, having a perfectly formed and stable balance spring is key to good timekeeping.

Cheers, Al

Dan S · Jul 22, 2020

mikeo1
So if I boil it down into simple terms-Omega bought this lousy co-axial patent from Daniels and it surprisingly turns out to be the primary differentiator between Omega movements and the rest of the market for the last 10-20 years?

Not "surprisingly" ... by design. As several people on this thread have repeatedly explained, the coaxial movement is a deliberate marketing ploy, a business decision, and Omega went all-in on it. It is only a differentiator because Omega claims that it is and advertises it. You keep missing (or perhaps ignoring) this point, but I can't figure out how to say it more clearly. I guess you are very impressed by the coaxial movement (or maybe by the nostalgic story behind it), but many WIS don't actually put much value on it, and I'm not sure the typical consumer cares very much either. They seem more focused on James Bond or Apollo 11.

So was it a good business decision? I have no idea even how to judge that. Revenue? Units sold? Profits? Prestige? Moreover, nobody knows how the brand would have fared had they taken a different direction with technology and marketing.

Sgt_Bilko · Jul 23, 2020

I tend to think the biggest practical advantage of a co-axial movement likely resides in the marketing value. Bringing IWC back into the discussion, I suspect the Cal 8541 in my Yacht Club is as good or better than anything Omega was producing at the time.

mikeo1 · Jul 23, 2020

If it's 25 jewels, it has ruby rollers on the rotor and the Yacht Club model also had an iron ring surrounding the movement for magnetic shielding

Do IWC vintage watches trump (no pun intended) vintage Seamasters?

Archer

mikeo1

Archer

mikeo1

Dan S

Archer

STANDY

lindo

STANDY

JwRosenthal

mikeo1

Archer

Dan S

Sgt_Bilko

mikeo1

Similar threads

Hi guys! I'm new in this forum, so, nice to meet you all :) and I need some hands (no pun intended)

Right on time no pun intended