Omega coax or not? 4503.51.00

NiklasARvid · Dec 22, 2022

what about these? is it a Coax movement or not?
Omega website calls it "De Ville Co-axial" but also says Cal.1120?

I like the style but would be more interested if Co-Axial

https://www.omegawatches.com/en-se/watch-omega-de-ville-prestige-co-axial-45035100

Annapolis · Dec 23, 2022

Someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m fairly certain that something is amiss here.

The 1120 movement does not have a coaxial escapement. (It’s the ETA-based predecessor to the 2500, which did.)

So the website is wrong in either of two possible ways, and I’m not sure which. Either it’s mislabeled this piece as coaxial or it’s mislabeled this piece as featuring the 1120. I’m 99.9% sure it’s the former—that the watch does indeed feature the 1120 and is not coaxial.

In either case, as I think you know, it’s a long-ago-discontinued watch.

Annapolis · Dec 23, 2022

And now that it’s on my mind… I’m not sure that Omega has ever produced a tonneau-cased watch with a coaxial movement… have they?

The DeVille line still includes a watch that superficially resembles this one—black dial, similar bracelet—with a coaxial movement, but it’s a round case, with a date complication and no Arabic numerals. Still, a very nice piece, and maybe the most affordable men’s watch in their entire catalog.

EDIT: right, this one in the specialities group. Must be others too that I just don’t know.

Archer · Dec 23, 2022

No, it's not co-axial. This model never came with anything other than the 1120 movement.

NiklasARvid · Dec 23, 2022

thanks both, those were my thoughts as well, especially early Co-Ax watches were always marked clearly?

but "everyone" (sellers online) seem to call this one Coax, probably misinformed by the Omega Website.

Cheers,
Niklas

Annapolis · Dec 23, 2022

Yeah that is a strange error on their site.

1120 is a fine movement—I wouldn’t not buy that watch if it appeals.

NiklasARvid · Dec 23, 2022

Annapolis
Yeah that is a strange error on their site.
1120 is a fine movement—I wouldn’t not buy that watch if it appeals.

its a nicer ETA2892 if i remember correctly? all fine, but I have other watches with that movement, ...I was hoping to score a cheap CoAxial in a good case ;-) I have the very very highest respect for the CoAxial escapement, pretty much the only significant improvement to the watch since Mudge 1755 right?

And I have no CoAx at the moment... ...and while I guess the 2500 in turn is just an 1120/2892 with a different escapement, but that makes ALL the difference to me.

If you haven't, you should read Daniels book, very interesting:

padders · Dec 23, 2022

Hmmm. The jury is still out on whether the co-ax escapement is truly all that useful in the real world. Some might suggest that the free spring balance and non magnetic silicon spring might be more significant advances and are certainly easier to mass manufacture! If you must have a co-ax, it may be best to go for a triple layer implementation as those seem to have fewer issues than the earlier double layer examples. I think the Daniels original was double layer. It just couldn't be made to work reliably long term!

Archer · Dec 23, 2022

NiklasARvid
its a nicer ETA2892 if i remember correctly?

Sort of. The 1120 is based on the 2892, but there are lots of parts that are not interchangeable between the two calibers. IMO the 1120 is a superior caliber to the 2892.

NiklasARvid
I have the very very highest respect for the CoAxial escapement, pretty much the only significant improvement to the watch since Mudge 1755 right?

Personally I think there are many improvements made to watches since Mudge that are far more significant than the co-axial escapement. Two easy examples are effective shock protection on the balance, and another would be white alloy mainsprings. These solved real world problems of broken balance staffs and frequently broken and set mainsprings, that caused a lot of grief for watch owners before they were invented. In comparison, the co-axial is a minor improvement that only one brand uses (and one small maker). In terms of industry impact, the two things I've cited are huge compared to the co-axial.

Personally having worked on many of both, I would take the 1120 over the 2500 every time.

NiklasARvid · Dec 23, 2022

Very interesting and highly educational! 😀 ...I should spend more time on Omegaforums...

...it was sort of jokingly, there is of course a looooong list of more important innovations (would be an interesting thread in itself?)
maybe:
-shock proof
-water proof
-auto
-center seconds
-antimagnetic
-lume
-chronograph

Omega coax or not? 4503.51.00

NiklasARvid

Annapolis

Annapolis

Archer

NiklasARvid

Annapolis

NiklasARvid

padders

Archer

NiklasARvid

Similar threads

authentic omega or not?

Waffle dial, original or not?

Omega Seamaster 2759 - original hands or not?

Omega Constellation Pie Pan 168.005 1964: Real or Not?

Replace the back or not ?

Cartier Santos Galbee, polished or not?