quote #1 "the balance wheel must be bimetallic and cut - then it is legitimate for a swap/replacement. Later monometallic balances are interchangeable as well but are not correct for the chronometer movement. A bimetallic balance is a must"
I think I understand your point, but was confused because the OP, nor anyone else, mentioned that the question was posed from the perspective of wondering what could work in a non-running watch, vs. simply trying to learn the difference between the two balance wheels.
With Later monometallic balances I did not mean replacement part 262.1327, just commonly used Glucydur-balances, should have been clear - no?
Maybe I had to be more specific...
BTW: this book was not sold by me! I did not sell any book through ebay or similar
Thanks @Bill Sohne for your explanation. Afraid my small brain cannot process every bit of mechanical info but I’ll just retain that many parts were upgraded including I guess the balance? As it seems to be listed on the 262 sheet?
Also may I ask what part is called the drive train in English? Believe it or not I took a day horology workshop but that was in French.
At what point during the progression of the chronometer iterations did Omega switch from a bimetallic balance to monometallic? From my understanding this occurred around 1950 which seems to imply that earlier bumper chronometers (eg JUB and 343) utilized a bimetallic balance.
Along this vein, what significant differences existed between the later bumper RG chronometers (eg cal 352) and their non-chronometer counterparts aside from the regulator and the finishing? The non-RG chronometer bumpers vs non-chronometer counterparts?
