Came across Omega's advert on Youtube, would be curious to know how accurate the watch is considering the stringent test it's put through. Anybody knows?

The pursuit of accuracy in mechanical watches is a quest that fascinates me! (using quartz is cheating [emoji12]).

 

The METAS timekeeping standard is reported to be -0/+5 seconds, compared to the COSC standard of -4/+6 seconds.

http://www.watchwow.com/2014/12/200071/omega-metas-new-certification-standard#.Vif91n6rSJA

I wonder when (if ever) another manufacturer aside from Omega will submit their products for "Master Chronometer" certification? It seems like a big gamble on Omega's part to have invested so much money in the development of this particular standard, when the Master Chronometer certification could end up having little or no impact on the marketability of its products.

 

just more spin.......

in reality it's no more accurate than COSC standard. It will depend on the premium they will require you to pay and if you can get one without the "Master Chronometer" movement.

 

Until a standard of -1 / +1 is met, it's just marketing and price justification.

 

Yeah, I agree that's it's mostly hype, but I don't care. I wanted one the moment I saw the first picture.

-- Bob

 

Now THAT'S a good reason to want the watch.

 

I like it too. Will add it to the short list for now.

 

More important than METAS certification is @Robert-Jan's report that the Platinum Globemaster will be "no date" afterall!

 

Amen!!!! I am very curious to learn more about the conversation behind that reversal of decision... The catalog had already been printed with the date wheel pt edition !!! So excited....

 

Just like COSC is more than -4 to +6, METAS is more than just 0 to +5. Those are the ranges for the average rate, so the most relatable numbers to the wearer of the watch. If the watch manufacturer or watchmaker working on your watch actually lets is run at -4 per day they are not doing their job very well in my view, so what real world difference will this make? IMO not much from what I see so far.

Putting my engineering hat on from a former life, you should always remember that you can't inspect quality into a product. Final inspection such as this testing is at best a verification of process controls, and at worst a sorting function to weed out the good from the bad if your process controls are substandard.

I'll reserve judgment until I have more information, but from what I have seen so far I'm not convinced this is any great leap forward. For example the delta allowed at full wind for a Master Chronometer is the same as it is for an Omega COSC watch, so there can still be as much positional variation as there was with a regular old COSC version, and they are simply doing a better job at regulating to hold within that specific range...

Cheers, Al

 

well its a huge innovation in watchmaking, the timepieces will also be tested for magnetism as well, and a lot will begin getting into master chronometer certification such as the other swatch group brands will be the first I am guessing.

 

it is in fact more precise than COSC certification, and also put through much more rigorous testing where huge factors such as magnetism is tested, and it is also an actual recognized certification by the Swiss government as for example you have "the rolex way", the 500 hour, the 1000 hour, also the grand Seiko, ETC.... they're all in house not recognized unlike master chronometer certification and pricing is going to be very reasonable, Rolex Milgauss 8200$ and Omega Globemaster $7700 and can withstand up to 15k gauss

 

all marketing bollocks I'm afraid. for someone playing $20k+ for an Omega I'm sure it "might" be important otherwise.... meh.

 

As an interesting sidebar (and in laymans language) http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/accuracy.shtml

 

If you are referring to timekeeping, that is wrong actually. It is more accurate (tighter range for average daily rate), but no more precise (same delta).



Cheers, Al

 

Based on the above bullseye images, my understanding is that Metas certification will guarantee that during a given period of observation the "shots" will (on average) always land on the "right side" (always positive to a max of +5s). If they are acheiving greater accuracy by regulation or not I really don´t care, the bottom line seems to be that they are offering improved accuracy guarantees over COSC during their 4yr warranty period, please correct me if I am wrong on this.

As for the 15000 gauss test, this is indeed a bit "gimmicky" as very few people will ever be using a watch with that level of electromagnetic exposure, but it is certainly less "gimmicky" and more useful than having a 4000m pressure rated dive watch.

The positives for me are:
1. Improved accuracy guarantee over the 4ry warranty period
2. Independent third-party validation of testing procedures
3. Transparency: you know the individual test results of your watch (something I think Grand Seiko already offer with their box & papers set)

 

In general terms, accuracy when lacking precision comes down more to luck than anything else. I used to be a competitive archer, so this was very relevant to me when standing on the shooting line, competing against an Olympic gold medalist in a head to head match for example. Getting the group small is the hard part - after you accomplish that, it's just a matter of moving your sight, and then this becomes much easier to do on a regular basis:

But in the context of this discussion, you mention the new standard compared to COSC. Not sure why, because Omega already uses a different standard than COSC. The specs call for a daily average rate of between -1 and +6 seconds per day, with Omega calling out the "target rate" of +3 seconds per day for these watches.

They now call for between 0 and +5 seconds per day, with a target rate of +3 seconds per day.

With the delta staying the same at 12 seconds over 5 positions at full wind, sorry I just don't see this as any big leap forward to be honest. I have had watches come in that the owner has said run spot on when they wear them, and the timing in positions was all over the place - just luck that they happen to balance out.

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks @Archer for the additional info: I wasn´t aware that Omega already operated at -1s/+6s with a target at +3s. The improvement with METAS in tightening of the range is indeed small to 0s/+5s with the target still at +3s.

I suppose the focus is indeed in generating consumer awareness to the fact that Omega (already) operate at a specification level above COSC standards, to position them at a clear technical level above Breitling, Tag and closer to Rolex. I agree that there does not seem to be a dramatic improvement in performance, but I still believe that they should be applauded for seeking a more transparent certification process.

The new Rolex 3255 calibre roll-out will probably not happen overnight, judging by the normal Rolex way of doing things, so Omega will still be able to compete on "technological chops" with the 3155 for some time across most of the product range. I imagine they are already preparing new improvements in their R&D to counter the "future threat" from the 3255. I think for the end user the best improvements would come in reducing the thickness of the co-axial movement + increasing the power reserve (and maintaining accuracy/precision at the same time).

I feel that Omega are currently too distracted with the 15000 Gauss materials technology and rolling this out to chronographs, for example, seems a waste of time to me: their most important chronograph from a sales perspective is based on the 1861 movement, which cannot adopt the new materials technology without being re-certified by NASA.

On a final note Al I would appreciate your take on calibre precision of both JLC and IWC, compared to the latest efforts from Omega and Rolex. Sorry to keep asking questions: but you are clearly a wonderful "Tresor" of information (please feel free to cringe at the awful pun)

Cheers

 

When are the globe masters expected in boutiques?

 

My local boutique said December 2015.