I have to say, I'm a bit (and the Omega Man in me is pleasantly) surprised at how the movement in my OP36 (ref 116000) is stacking up against my SMPc (ref 212.30.41.20.03.001). More accurate would be how the Rolex seems to slightly lag behind the Omega in performance.

Same routine for two timepieces that were brand new: Give both a full wind, wear the watch for a week, noting time gain/loss each day, then take it off for and see how long as it takes for the mainspring of both 48hr power reserve engines to run out of juice.


Rolex OP36: -4s a day, 46hrs 25mins
Omega SMPc: -1sec a day, 49hrs 10mins


It's pretty interesting that the Rolex can't meet its own Superlative Chronometer standard (although it's still within COSC). Of course, it's still early on, and several have told me to give it a bit of time to "settle in" before passing judgement. As for the power reserve, I guess the Rolex, while completely adequate, wants me to be "more active". Point taken, Hans. Haha. But it does give me a bit of evidence that MAYBE Omega's automatic movements are a bit better at converting the wearers movements into stored mainspring energy, and to actually exceed their rated endurance.

Not knocking Rolex. I love both brands that reside in my collection. Just sharing my observations.

Cheers,

Alex

 

My Date~Just, calibre 3035, from 1989, was losing one second in two days up until about 3 months ago. It sat in my vault for 3 months, until recently. This past 4 days, it has been in lock step with my standard time source. It had the benefit of a thorough service and new mainspring less than two years ago, and has been worn perhaps 6 months, off and on, since then. It is hard for me to comprehend that any mechanical,timepiece could do much better than that.

 

That's great to know. I'm hoping that my own OP has a similar experience.

 

I'd prefer watches regulated so that they gain slightly rather than lose slightly.

 

I'd like that too!