Hi folks...

Anybody owned a watch powered by this movement? Can you speak to it's quality - is it a good movement?

 

I have not owned one, but I have serviced hundreds probably. Your question is incredibly vague, so what exactly do you want to know?

 

With normal routine mntc is it a reliable and accurate mvmt? Have you seen common problems with it after servicing so many?

 

What do you mean by accurate? +/- 20 seconds a day? +/- 10 seconds a day? COSC specs often stated at -4 to +6 seconds a day? Better than COSC?

What version of the movement are you referring to - there are 4 off the shelf versions plus many custom options possible?

The more specific you are the better I can answer your questions - so many companies use so many different versions of the 2824-2 that your question is still extremely vague. If you have a specific watch/brand in mind with this movement, please provide that information.

In terms of reliability, generally speaking it's as good as any other movement. It's a movement I would not excessively hand wind, as this will cause wear to the barrel bridge and possibly the main plate. However manually winding it in a normal fashion is fine if the watch is properly maintained.

 

Accurate as in what I expect from a 3187 Rolex or an 1866 Omega. Tell time. Regulate-able. Off a few minutes a month is expected.

This...
http://www.steinhartwatches.de/en/OCEAN-two-white,689.html

 

Okay, the Rolex is a certified chronometer, and the Speedmaster is not, so those are apples and oranges to begin with. I don't know how many "a few" is, so I can't really relate to what that is in a month. However if "a few" means 3 minutes, then you are certainly pushing what this watch would likely run at out of the box, because 3 minutes a month is essentially within COSC specs. If "a few" means 6 or 8 minutes a month, then I expect this would meet that requirement.

Seriously I'm trying to help you, but you are making it difficult to give you solid answers...

Anyway, the link provided tells me it's an Elabore grade movement, so it does not use the better balance wheel, balance spring, pallet, and mainspring that the Top and Chronometer grades use. The 4 readily made grades are Standard, Elabore, Top and Chronometer, so this is the second of 4 grades. However as it happens I have serviced one of these models (not the all white version, but the same model with blue/black on the dial and bezel) and I was able to get very good timing results on the watch. As you can see the movement has zero decoration:





Disassembled:



Timing in 6 positions:



Results are excellent:



To put these results into perspective, the Elabore grade movement allows the positional rate to vary as much as 20 seconds measured over just 3 positions. Here I have only 6.4 seconds over 6 positions. For an Omega COSC watch, they allow as much as 12 seconds measured over 5 positions, so this is an excellent result. Note that this is more than just regulation to get the watch this good - it requires being able to adjust the watch, which is a completely different thing to regulation. With just regulation as you noted, it won't be this good.





Pressure tested and done:



Some brands pay a lot of attention to timing on their watches, but not most of the smaller micro-brands like Steinhart. You might get lucky and have one meet your requirements right out of the box, but it's a crap shoot. Some brands are worse than others - Oris I swear does zero adjusting on their watches and just installs whatever they get from the factory...

So if it's handled by someone who knows how to properly adjust a watch, then it could be as good as a COSC watch even with the lesser parts.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, Al

 

As usual, awesome Al.

No more questions. Thank you.

 

The only complaint I've ever heard about the 2824 is that the rotor spins when the crown is used to wind the mainspring. Never witnessed this myself though, and don't know if this would put excess wear on the automatic parts like reverser wheels.

ETA makes some very reliable movements. I've had quite a few 2892-A2's and the odd 7750 that have performed incredibly.

 

If the rotor is spinning when you are winding the watch using the crown, it is malfunctioning. This indicates that the reversing wheels are not working properly to disengage the rotor from the rest of the winding train. Continuing to wind using the crown when this happens can cause wear/damage because the parts are not meant to move a load as large as the rotor.

This problem is not specific to the 2824, or even ETA - I had a Rolex 3215 in here a couple of weeks ago that was doing the same thing.

Cheers, Al

 

Hey Archer, I had a question for you. How would you rate the quality of the ETA movements that Tudor uses? I know that they use the Top-grade, which is the same component-quality as chrono, but the movement simply doesn't get tested upon assembly. I also know that Tudor modifies the movement by removing the shock absorbers and one other item and replaces them with Rolex's technology. I read another watchmakers take on it and he actually said that their modifications are make the watch slightly more susceptible to shock. How does the 2824 ticking in a Tudor Pelagos fare relative to the two aforementioned movements. I understand that Tudor is a lot cheaper than Omega, which is somewhat cheaper than Rolex. I just want to use those two movements as a benchmark for comparing accuracy and durability over the long-run.

 

I was actually offered quite a few of these a couple years ago...the people who do the mods for Rolex had some left over I guess, so they were unloading them. They sent me these photos:







I didn't have a use for them at the time, and I was buying a lot of other stuff so funds were limited, but I sort of wish I had bought a few anyway...

So the movement is modified - they remove the Incabloc shock protection and install Kif. I have never seen any scientifically done study to show which system is better at resisting shocks. Pro-Rolex collectors will make claims that Kif is better, but if you ask them why (I have) often the reply will be "Because Rolex uses it!"

The also remove the ETACHRON system and replace it with a Triovis regulator.

I'm not sure what other 2 movements you are referring to, but there is no reason the 2824 as executed in the Tudor can't be a movement that runs very well. Durability is the same as any other 2824, because nothing Rolex has done to it would affect that aspect of the movement.

Cheers, Al

 

Sorry, I was referring to the 8500 and the 3135 for comparison. I had posted a much longer question originally, but for sake of your time, I shortened it. I must have forgot to check to see if everything made sense afterwards. I know that you said the comparison between the 8500 and the 3135 is apples to oranges due to certification, but I like to think of the 8500 as just as accurate -- even without being certified. Just wanted an experienced persons view as to how the ETA would fit in there. I guess I'm tired of reading that Rolex is the best without receiving some sort of evidence, and that ETA movements and all other non-in-house movements are not desirable in a watch- even though the in-house movement trend is a relatively new phenomenon for the likes of the Tags and the Breitlings, if you will.

 

Well the watches mentioned above were an 1866 Speedmaster, so a manual wind, non-COSC chronograph, and a Rolex automatic, which is a COSC watch.

The 8500 is a COSC watch, at least for now until Omega stops using COSC.

As I have shown in this thread, I have made even elabore grade ETA 2824's run well within chronometer specs as defined by what Omega requires on their COSC watches at service, so it really depends on the skill of the person doing the work.

Cheers, Al

 

Fair enough, sorry for the mistake. I thought Omega practiced COSC but I wasn't 100% sure so I didn't want to be wrong. I read they are shifting to a more rigorous standard. While it didn't sound as meticulous as the 1000-hour test JLC puts its watches through, it still sounded more rigorous than COSC. Thank you for the help, Archer [emoji106]