As much as I love my vintage Speedmasters, I would like a diver as well. Obviously my thoughts first turned to a late sixties Seamaster 300 but then if it's a diver, to me, you should be able to use it for diving, or at least swimming, so I started to look at WatchCo 300's. Omega then released the new Seamaster Master Coaxial which I absolutely love.

However, I'm trying to find a bit more info on the movement parts used to make it anti magnetic. It's seems silicon is used for several parts, including the hairspring, and I've read a couple of articles suggesting that this material can be brittle and fragile and not everyone in the know is in favour.

Without overstating it, are these movements something of an unknown in terms of their reliability, robustness and ease of servicing? If certain parts are brittle and susceptible to breaking when removed, will watches need to go to omega for servicing?

One of the things I like about Omegas is that they're pretty tough and if well maintained should last decades. If these new movements are unproven, I think it might sway me back to a WatchCo.

 

Thanks mate - saved me the trouble of typing it all again.

The silicon balance spring is one part of the new master co-axial watches being anti-magnetic, but others that are not the master version also have this technology. So later 8500's and 9300's, etc.

Some other movement parts have been made out of non-magnetic materials in the master co-axial movements, further increasing their resistance to magnetic fields.

I think by nature anything new is somewhat unproven, and their have been issues with some of the newer movements, but Omega is sorting them out.

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks guys, very interesting.

So is using silicon balance springs, along with nivagauss (whatever that is) staffs and pivots a gimmick or a genuine breakthrough in watchmaking?

It seems like the make-up of some of the materials is a closely guarded secret suggesting that Omega think they have something genuinely valuable to protect.

 

It's an interesting question. There are a whole group of people out there who think magnetism is a non issue with modern watches - they would be wrong. Although most modern watches have balance springs that are far more resistant to magnetism than for example an old blued steel balance spring is, they can still become magnetized.

I actually see magnetized watches with some regularity in my shop - I'm sure if I was an actual retail shop with walk in customers, I would see more. There are more magnetic fields around us today than ever before, and usually the first question I ask if someone comes to me with a suspected magnetized watch is "Do you have an iPad?" I have seen several watches magnetized by people sitting them on their iPad and the cover magnets are pretty strong.

It's not just timing issues either. In a chronograph, having a magnetized hammer can cause all kinds of resetting and starting issues with the chronograph. I had another watchmaker email me about problems he had on a Cal. 861 a while back, where the central chronograph hand would jump forward many seconds when he pressed the start button. I recommended he demagnetize the movement, and that solved the issue immediately. The hammer being magnetized was dragging the cam around as it lifted off, causing the hand to move forward. There wasn't a problem, with timekeeping, so the balance spring was fine - it was just the hammer.

Of course many watchmakers use shielding instead of making the actual parts of the watch anti-magnetic, so the engineer side of me likes an idea that solves the problem at the root and eliminates the magnetic materials more than one that is more of a band aid approach.

Is this an earth shattering leap forward in timekeeping? Well no, that happened over 40 years ago with advent of quartz. But it is small step forward in watchmaking, which is all you are likely to get with such a mature and anachronistic technology like this.

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks for your thoughts Al. Very interesting this watch making business. I can feel a book coming on

 

Al.

I know it is different for a pro than for a tinkerer, but I have got into the habit of demagnetising every part of the watch - regardless of whether it needs it or not - between cleaning and re-assembly. This may be overkill and does take a while - especially with a chronograph - but is it a good habit to continue? I use an Elma Antimag, before you ask and place the parts in a small ziplock bag to avoid them being launched into the room.

 

Not overkill at all. In fact you should demagnetize more than once during service. I demagnetize BEFORE I disassemble the movement, so when the watch is run through the cleaning machine, the dirt and magnetic debris can be more easily washed away, and not get "stuck" to various parts due to magnetism.

After cleaning the watch movement is assembled, and then demagnetized before timing checks are done - this is all pretty standard operating procedures for any watchmaker. If addition demagnetizing is required, then your tools should be looked at to make sure they are not magnetized.

Unless a watch is really severely magnetized, there usually is no need to do each part individually, but again it depends on the type and power of demagnetizer you have.

Cheers, Al