Hodinkee Talking Watches with Roger Smith

 

Do you think he gets his Ed White serviced by Simon Freese?

 

This was a great interview.....

 

Fantastic! I loved this episode. Ed White and a Marine Chronometer too....lovely.

Roger for T4AP Chris?

 

It's a cracking interview.

Talking with Roger would be ace - travel budget is currently restricted to zones 1-3 of the london tube map.

 

Interesting that Rodger does not own one of his own watches. I heard this from another small manufacture as well. Hard to justify making one for personal use when there is a backlog.

 

Regarding the cal. 321: "You can tell the movement was designed by watchmakers." Quite an accolade.

However, is he over-selling the intervals needed for co-axial lubrication? Because, if I'm not mistaken, I believe Archer, who is in the watch-making trenches daily, has said that the co-axial escapement cannot go any longer than the lever escapement without needing lubrication.

 

I believe he meant the Co-axial part not needing as much lubrication. The other jewels, wheels or whatever turns needs a regular librication interval.

 

I see your point, but if that were the case, how is the co-axial escapement such a boon to watchmaking? In other words, if you have to lubricate the other pivots and wheels at regular intervals, you're already into the watch anyway, so what would be the big deal about lubricating the escapement?

 

Accuracy?

 

I think the way Roger Smith makes a co-axial movement is quite a bit different to the way Omega makes them. I've heard that the Omega co-axial DOES need lubrication which brings up the question of whether it's worth the increased complexity as it needs servicing as frequently as lets say a Rolex 3135.

 

The way RS described the two, I immediately thought the co-axial would suffer less friction. If that is true, it should last longer without replacement, just lubing.

 

And yet I replace far more co-axial wheels than I do escape wheels for wear. There's more involved in creating wear than just the amount of friction involved. As you can see from these photos of worn out co-axial wheels, they certainly have conditions that cause a significant level of wear to the teeth:





And if you ask how does that happen, well I took a video of the pallet fork and co-axial wheel teeth moving past each other as that "push" that he talks about happens...one very sharp/thin co-axial wheel tooth corner passing another sharp/hard pallet fork jewel corner...

Omega makes no claims about increased accuracy from the co-axial. When I went to Omega to train on servicing these movements, the first thing they told us is that this escapement was not about increasing accuracy, but only the service interval. I can tell you that the co-axial watches are no more accurate than the regular lever escapement watches. In fact at the bench I find they have more instability in rate an amplitude than the equivalent Swiss lever movement (comparison of Omega 1120 v 2500, and 3303 v 3313 is the basis for my comments).

You will note that the claims of excellent accuracy in Omega watches coincided with the introduction of the silicon balance spring - this is what makes the current watches capable of great accuracy, not the escapement.

His comments on the 321 were somewhat surprising to me. In particular the fact that they are "bulletproof" and don't show wear, so I can only assume he was servicing watches that were regularly serviced or rarely used...in my experience they often need repairs for wear.

Cheers, Al

 

So, to clarify, that interval has not really increased, correct?

 

Across forums I've seen people say things about Omega promising 10 year service intervals for the co-axial, but I've never seen anything official from Omega to confirm this sort of number.

In all the policies and procedures I've read, Omega says that they can't indicate the service frequency that will be required, because it depends on model, climate, care, and owner's wearing habits. But they go on to say that as a "general rule" service is recommended every 4 to 5 years.

I'd call that a "no" but others may see things differently.

 

Excellent. Many thanks, Al.

 

Thanks Archer.
The coax looks like a slide rather than a push in that vid.

 

"Push" is definitely his term...not mine...

 

He gives a few interesting details here (read the text, not just the image) https://www.instagram.com/p/BenwJKvFFrc/

Note that the figures he gives are for a full rotation of the escape wheel, not for one vibration; the diagram was very confusing until I noticed that detail. Also pay attention to when he refers to escapement and when he refers to mechanism, I think that’s crucial to understand what co-axial actually improves (or doesn’t).