Forums Latest Members

Does my SMPc use a 2500c or 2005d movement?

  1. LeDave Aug 26, 2014

    Posts
    110
    Likes
    110
    The reference number on my card is 21230412001003. Is this the 2500c or 2500d? I am curious of what mine is now, and is it true that the 2500d requires less maintenance?

    EDIT: Deleted all the wrong information, Archer explains everything in his post.
     
  2. Lee CL Aug 26, 2014

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    17

    You can email Omega with your serial no. They will help you check which co--axial movement you are using.

    Quote a reply from Omega

    "With a watch escapement, energy has to be transmitted to the oscillator; this energy maintains the oscillator's amplitude. The impulse in a Swiss lever escapement involves the wheel tooth sliding along the inclined surface of the pallet. This sliding movement generates considerable friction, making optimal lubrication vital if the escapement is to function correctly. In contrast, the OMEGA Co-Axial escapement transmits energy using lateral impulses. The smaller contact surfaces and the pushing motion, as opposed to the lever escapement's sliding motion, significantly reduce the friction in the escapement. There is, therefore, less wear and tear on the lubrication, resulting in longer service intervals."

    But they never tell me how long is the service intervals.
     
    Antoniomvm and LeDave like this.
  3. metalgear Aug 26, 2014

    Posts
    22
    Likes
    36
    where can i find the email address of omega? have some questions for the parts availability of another model.
     
  4. Lee CL Aug 26, 2014

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    17
  5. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Aug 27, 2014

    Posts
    20,516
    Likes
    45,794
    Hi LeDave,

    Well you heard wrong. The first 2500 did not have a letter after it - it became the A revision when the B was released. Then the C, and finally the D. The A, B, and C have all had problems, which is why there is a D revision - if it was working well why would they make all these revisions?

    None of Omegas designs exactly match what George Daniels designed, but the big difference between the C and the D is that the C is a 2 level design, and the D is a 3 level design. Actually the A, B, and C are all 2 levels designs, and these are the most problematic.

    Both the 2 and 3 level designs were initially thought up by George Daniels, not Omega. In fact the "new" 3 level design is the original co-axial design. The 2 level was made by Daniels when some brands he tried to sell the co-axial to said it was too thick, so he redesigned it to the 2 level to save vertical space.

    The 2500D is less prone to problems, so maybe that is where you heard it requires less maintenance. As someone pointed out, Omega claims an increased service interval with these co-axial watches, but I personally have some issues with that. Even discounting the problem movements, the escapement is just one part of a whole system inside a watch that needs attention periodically. When I get a watch in that has stopped, it's the whole movement that needs service, not just the escapement. Usually it has stopped because all the oils in the train wheels have dried up and caused the watch to bog down and stop.

    So the idea that creating less friction in one specific place (even an important one like the escapement) will magically make the service interval increase by orders of magnitude is not really true. It may increase the interval slightly, but over the years Omega has backed down considerably from their initial claims.

    With regards to the beat rate, versions A and B are 28,8000, and version C and D are 25,2000.

    If you want to know what movement is in your watch, PM me the full serial number and I'll look it up for you.

    Cheers, Al
     
  6. LeDave Aug 27, 2014

    Posts
    110
    Likes
    110
    Thanks a whole bunch Archer, you're the best! Love all the knowledge I am soaking up.
     
  7. Lode_Runner Aug 30, 2014

    Posts
    51
    Likes
    137
    Archer explains the differences correctly. But with respect to your SMPc, that reference model reflects the newer ceramic bezel models. The SMP line had transitioned to the 2500d even before the ceramic ones came out, so your model has the 2500d, not the earlier 2500c.

    There are hundreds of posts on various forums on the reliability of the 2500c movement and problems people had with them, so I won't try to chronicle all of that. The consensus was that there was nothing inherently wrong with the design of the 2500c, even though most agree the 2500d is better and closer to the design of the 8500. The problem with the 2500c was the lubrication; it required minimal lubrication (as with all Omega co-axials), but in the early days of the Omega co-axial, Omega didn't fully understand that. So they applied the same amount of lubricant to the 2500c that you'd typically use in non-co-axial movement, which was causing many of the 2500c watches (most commonly first generation Planet Oceans) to freeze up or stop after a period of use. Many of those early 2500c watches were fixed under warranty by Omega, and Omega eventually figured out how to correctly lubricate the 2500c and shipped them with the proper amount of lubrication. I have a 2500c Planet Ocean with a serial number from shortly before they moved to the 2500d, and it has run perfectly for almost three years.
     
    HogWldFLTR and LeDave like this.
  8. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Aug 30, 2014

    Posts
    20,516
    Likes
    45,794
    Hello - I have posted this information on other forums, and possibly even here somewhere, but I'll do it again quickly...

    The 2 level co-axial escapement has an inherent design problem, which stems from the dual role of the upper co-axial wheel teeth, and the intermediate escape wheel teeth. These teeth are designed to fill 2 purposes, and the shape required for the teeth to do this causes a build up of sticky residue on these teeth, which eventually causes what is widely known on forums as "the stopping problem."

    [​IMG]

    This problem exists on all 2 level co-axial designs so the 2500 A, B, and C, and others like the early versions of the 3313, etc.

    Omega attempted to remedy this problem several times with different solutions, and their first attempts were not successful. In the end the procedures for the application of epilame to the co-axial wheel and intermediate escape wheel were changed, and also a specific lubricant is applied to all 20 teeth of the intermediate escape wheel, and it is applied in a fairly substantial amount (at one time these teeth were left dry). In addition on the 2500C, there is a new intermediate escape wheel used with a different surface finish, but since Omega does not offer a similar new wheel for the other versions, the real need for this new wheel is somewhat suspect in my mind. But as they require, when I service a 2500C that has this residue (most of the co-axials I see do, even if they have not yet stopped because of it) I always replace the wheel - it's only $20 or so and worth doing if it helps prevent this problem from coming back.

    To the best of my knowledge, this last fix that Omega has implemented has mitigated the problem, at least to a point where the build up of this residue is not causing the watches to come in for service prematurely. But the inherent design issue, the shape of those teeth, is still there. If someone bought a watch late in the production of the 2500C, then this new procedure would have been implemented at the factory, so in those cases it's no surprise that watches have run for a few years without stopping. It does not mean that they won't have this problem eventually, but it may not cause the watch to stop before it needs service for other reasons.

    To me the fact that all current Omega co-axials are the 3 level design, which completely eliminates this problem, tells me that Omega thinks the 3 level is a more robust design and has less potential to cause them warranty problems. The fact that the 2 level design has been eliminated completely from their offerings tells me they are not 100% confident that they have completely solved the issues.

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers, Al
     
  9. Lode_Runner Aug 30, 2014

    Posts
    51
    Likes
    137

    This is really helpful; thanks for putting this down all in one place. I've read literally hundreds of posts on this but never saw your earlier posts or such a clear and authoritative explanation.

    Based on your comments and the design flaw you identify with the two level design, would you recommend that people simply pass on 2500c-based Omega watches on the secondary market? There are some very nice ones (like the limited edition Liquidmetal 42mm) that I believe are 2500c-based.
     
  10. LeDave Aug 30, 2014

    Posts
    110
    Likes
    110
    I agree with Lode_Runner, Archer you know everything!
     
    metalgear likes this.
  11. metalgear Aug 31, 2014

    Posts
    22
    Likes
    36
    Has there been any mention on when R&D for the 8500 began? Was it a planned successor to the 2500 series etc. And if so we're versions c and D indeed stop gap measures?
     
  12. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Aug 31, 2014

    Posts
    20,516
    Likes
    45,794
    Some quick answers to a few posts:

    1 - Once serviced with the new procedures, the watches do seem to run okay, but this was all implemented in about 2010, so now at 2014 we still a ways away from the time when some of these watches will be coming up for service. So far so good I guess. If you really want a piece that uses the 2500 C, then go for it.

    2 - My wife would seriously disagree that I know everything, but thanks for the vote of confidence anyway.

    3 - I believe the 8500 was released in 2007? Don't quote me on that but it seems it was in the works for a while. I can't say if it was designed as a replacement for the 2500 - but the 2500 is still being used in the SMPc with the 2500D version is used. I think the mods to the 2500 versions were to stop the warranty claims Omega was having. The A version had to have the bridge for the pallet fork and co-axial wheel beefed up (shock would cause the escapement to lock up), so that was the B version. Then they decided Daniels might be right that the beat rate needed to be lower, so the C version came out (this was said to improve the self starting capabilities of the movement, so when you wound it up it would start like a Swiss lever escapement would). By then they were getting the residue, so they finally went to the 3 level in the D.

    Cheers, Al
     
    robinhook, TedG954 and metalgear like this.
  13. NT931 Aug 31, 2014

    Posts
    2,651
    Likes
    13,206
    Al, as always you're a fount of info! Was wondering - have you ever thought of compiling some of the common Omega questions (like this one about co-axial movements) or other technical questions into a series of FAQs on your website?

    It might function like Desmond's Constellation reference guide - future forum members can be pointed to your FAQ much the same way we guide people to Desmond's blog, and it would save you typing the answers every few months on various forums. Plus it would be a huge treasure trove of info!
     
  14. Lee CL Aug 31, 2014

    Posts
    34
    Likes
    17
    Correct me if I'm wrong, I read somewhere that 8500 is a bit thicker that the 2500, therefore, in order to please people prefer a thinner watch, Omega is unlikely to stop 2500. The diver is likely to be on 2500 but the PO will be on 8500.
     
  15. Lode_Runner Aug 31, 2014

    Posts
    51
    Likes
    137
    According to Omega's website, the first 8500-based watch that they publicly released released was the DeVille Hour Vision, which came out in 2007.
     
  16. fskywalker Sep 12, 2014

    Posts
    2,763
    Likes
    5,694
    What a coincidence! I e-mailed Omega this morning to ask exactly the same question on my 2014 SMP Coax (wave dial). It has 255XXXXX S/N, which according to postings here and elsewhere indicated a 2500D movement. Omega replied to me in just under 1 hour and confirmed my movement is indeed 2500D. Like others said, given the fact your watch is ceramic, it must be 2500D. If it brings you piece of mind, contact them (like I did) to confirm !!!
     
    Edited Jan 7, 2017
    robinhook and spacewalker like this.
  17. lhawli Feb 18, 2016

    Posts
    102
    Likes
    124
    85373838 is my serial for my PO 2500. I presume this is a revision D? Can someone help me confirm this :)?
     
  18. fskywalker Feb 18, 2016

    Posts
    2,763
    Likes
    5,694
    Very likely as the number is over the 8525XXXX which is consider the point at which the change occured. The font of numbers on 2500D are different; can you post a picture of yours?

    Regards,

    Francisco
     
    robinhook likes this.
  19. Johannes123 Feb 19, 2016

    Posts
    13
    Likes
    8
    Cool, your PO must be manufactured in probably the same batch as mine.
    My serial is 85373733 (which is pretty close to yours :))
    Mine is a 2500D, visible due to the + 8525XXXX serial ( as mentioned above), and also the different font of the numbers compared to early PO's.

    And also I would like to say hello, as this is my first post at this forum.
    My PO is my daily watch, only to be replaced at outdoor activities like road bike racing etc. by a G-Shock.
     
  20. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Feb 19, 2016

    Posts
    20,516
    Likes
    45,794
    I've checked the serial number and it's a D version.

    Cheers, Al
     
    larryganz likes this.