. . . sight-unseen.

I had dealt with the seller before and I trusted his description, so we worked out a price and I dispatched the money. A friend has since seen the watch and deemed it to be in between very good and excellent condition. Very cool.

I have contacted Steve Schurmann about it, and he's told me the watch obviously has a Calibre 2500 of one iteration or another. Steve suggested that I send it to Omega should it need service, as they can up-grade it, whether it's A, B, C or D, and I wonder what the up-grade consists of.

Is the 2500 as much of an experiment as Steve suggests, and did Omega really see fit to use their client base as a test bed for short-comings in the watch's design?

The reality is, I can service the 2200.50.00 PO XL (45.5mm, black dial & bezel insert), keep my 50th Anniversary Seamaster GMT, and still be in the two watches for less than the cost of the newish GoodPlanet GMT, by which I was a little under-whelmed in person at Hyde Park a few weeks ago.

In any event, an Omega presented itself and I bought it, which is starting to appear as a slightly disturbing recurring theme . . .

 

Al currently has my Seamaster James Bond Collector's Piece (212.30.41.20.01.001), so I'll check with him . . .

 

Several of us, including me, think along those lines. I don't know if I'd go as far as you are, but Omega did definitely rush the coxial to market because it had a good story. They modified it and jammed it into their existing line of ETA 2892 based calibers. The problem is the escapement was never meant to work set up similar to a standard escapement - it was designed to be multi-level. Now that Omega has the caliber 8500, which was engineered to use the coaxial as designed and take full advantage of it, Daniel's escapement is working as planned.

 

A PO will only have either a 2500 C or D version. If you PM me the serial number, I'll look it up on the Extranet, and usually they tell you what specific movement is in the watch, but not always.

The only "upgrade" that will be done is to possibly replace the intermediate escape wheel on the C version. That, along with a different and specific lubrication procedure, is Omega's solution to what is commonly known on forums as "the stopping problem" where the watch will just stop at some point, well before it should. Often the stopping is intermittent at first, then it will finally stop and not run again until being serviced.

The 2 level co-axial escapement has some issues with the shape of the teeth on the intermediate escape wheel and co-axial wheel. By making the upper teeth serve dual functions (to save space and make the movement thinner), the shape of the teeth is a compromise design, and this leads to a build up of sticky black residue on the teeth, and this is what eventually stops the watch - you can see the build up here:



Here is a closer look at another one:



I see this build up on most of the 2 level co-axials that I get in the shop. Note that the D version is a 3 level design, and none of the 3 level designs have this specific issue, but they are a thicker movement.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, Al

 

Just to nip this internet mythology in the bud....the 2 level design was designed by Daniels in response to requests from some of the brands he was shopping his designs around to, as they wanted the movement to be thinner. This was not something Omega dreamed up on their own...

Now if you want to complain about Omegas beat rates and choice of materials, then you certainly have a point, but let's not start spreading falsehoods about where the 2 level design came from...

Cheers, Al

 

I don't want to complain but you have my attention.

 

This is all good stuff, but most of it is over my head. My primary watch concerns are the cosmetic impact (on me), and accuracy. Except for the Cal. 321 Speedy and the El Primero automatic chronograph, I'm not overly concerned with having a state of the art movement. In fact, my Moon Speedy has an 861.

With the Cal. 2500, I guess I'm just curious if they can be up-dated to be relatively long-lived and accurate during that span . . .

By the way, my money for the XL is still en route to the seller, so the watch won't be in my (friend's) hands until early in the week.

Then I'll get the serial number and we'll know more . . .

 

Okay, Daniels did the 2 level design - in response to requests from Omega and other brands. Still not the 3 plane design that he originally planned on that works wonderfully.

 

It wasn't by request from Omega...

 

Since the new intermediate escape wheel was introduced, and the new lubrication procedure, this issue is "resolved" according to Omega.

Cheers, Al

 

Daniels used very soft materials for the parts (I believe gold was used in some parts, but I can't say that for certain) and when Omega decided not use it the same materials, this leads us to having to oil 30 individual points on an escapement that "does not need oil." The oil is not there as a lubricant on the co-axial wheel, but more of a cushion.

If the oil is not there, it can cause wear to the co-axial wheel teeth, like this:



In addition, Daniels was using a lower bear rate, but Omega wanted to use the common 28,800, against Daniels advice. The 2500A and B are both at 28,800, but the C and D are at 25,200.

The 8500's are all at 25,200, but the 9300 is back up to 28,800 again.

Cheers, Al

 

Other than owner preference (jerky to some?) why would one BPH be better than the other?

 

Not sure what you mean. People do like the faster beat as it is less jerky, in particular with a long hand on a big 45.5 mm watch. Daniels obviously tried his escapement at different beat rates, and found slower (I think it was 18,000) was better for performance and longevity...

 

That's what I was asking. Thanks.