Just as the title implies, does anyone know what ACTUAL component differences exist in the newer 9300 movements compared to the 9900?

I am well aware that the 9300 is COSC and 9900 "Master" is METAS w/15K Gauss, but it *appears* on the surface that the two movements actually use the same components, meaning that the 9900 is basically a re-certified and re-labeled 9300 movement. Can anyone confirm what the actual story is? Are 9300's 15K gauss resistant even though they are not "certified" for it?

Call me crazy, but they look identical, and all component specs seem identical as well.

Does anyone have any real, actual info here? Specifically, the 9615 movement is where my concern lies. I am about to purchase an Aqua Terra which uses this movement, and I am going to be pissed if I buy one, only to have some new movement appear right after to replace it. That said, if its a cert alteration only, no big deal. But if actual components are different, I may reconsider waiting to see if it finally gets a 9900 base replacement vs 9300.

 

I sometimes wonder how a recent 9300 would fair in the METAS tests.... I suspect rather well :0)

 

Yes.

No, they do not use all the same components.

Okay, you are crazy.

I can't say if Omega is going to release a replacement for the 9615, but it's certainly more than just recertifying the movement.

So a bunch of parts change for identification reasons, so anything that has text on it is likely to change between the two movements, because they have different designations - those are cosmetic changes.

But several key parts change for the METAS certification, so the balance, the pallet fork, the co-axial wheel, the intermediate escape wheel, and the shock springs. These parts are made from different materials to resist magnetism.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks for the info Archer! That definitely helps explain what is going on.

Do you have any idea what kind of resistance the 9300 based movements actually have? This is rapidly turning into a "wait and see" if they release a new model on the 12th situation. I really like the 9615 movement, but at the same time I am around magnetic fields pretty regularly, so its a realistic concern. The killer is that there are so few options in the range I am looking at that have been switched to Master movements. All the GMT or Chrono variants are not Master in Gold variations, and those are the only ones I would consider.

 

I don't know if there is a specific Gauss rating for it, but since it has a silicon balance spring, you won't have rate issues cause by coils of the balance spring sticking together...

 

I had a quick look based on @Archer feedback and there seems to be around 15 different parts (material / part number change I guess) from the 9300 to 9900. They look the same / same instructions so I guess it is just material. One part appears to be the date wheel. I still think compared to older generations as @Archer says above with a silicon balance spring you would get good performance even from a 9300. I would be interested to see how far a 9300 would get across all the METAS tests but I imagine the Omega marketing team would not been keen. Unless facing an MRI scan I suspect the 9300 level of resistance is pretty good for day to day use.Out of interest here are my pictograms for the 9300 + my only master C (Globemaster 8900). Funny I can dive deeper with my dress watch ...but it is not a tachy and it is full METAS so I guess that makes sense.