Snoopy 2025 production issues?

ErichPryde · Jul 2, 2025

ErichKeane
Yes, of course they would. Striking less deep or grinding more off would result in the tip of the cone not being struck.

Yes, it would result in a flatter star with high surface area, but not a taller, more voluminous star. Greater surface area, less volume and detail, and goes from being engraving to having the "print-like" quality.

ErichKeane · Jul 2, 2025

ErichPryde
Yes, it would result in a flatter star with high surface area, but not a taller, more voluminous star. Greater surface area, less volume and detail, and goes from being engraving to having the "print-like" quality.

That would depend on the die. If it doesn't form the tip of the star shaped cone and they grind it flat, it will result in more of the white being visible, which looks it he the case. It'll seem taller because more is visible/less of the width is displaced.

ErichPryde · Jul 2, 2025

ErichKeane
That would depend on the die. If it doesn't form the tip of the star shaped cone and they grind it flat, it will result in more of the white being visible, which looks it he the case. It'll seem taller because more is visible/less of the width is displaced.

Perhaps I worded that poorly. This is exactly what I mean, more visible silver surface would result because the material can only fill as far as the strike allows.

Assuming:
The same die in good condition
The same pressure during strike
Same angle
The same blank (thickness, material)
The same amount of enamel being added
The same amount of enamel being ground away

There shouldn't be anything even close to this amount of variation. Variations should be very small- tiny variations in the amount of silver visible on the star tops, things like that.

Feel free to correct me if I've got any of that wrong.

I won't argue -- rather, I'm not arguing whether or not omega will treat this as a defect or not based upon their track record. Whatever that truth May be, something very inconsistent is happening during this production process.

Archer · Jul 2, 2025

ErichPryde
There shouldn't be anything even close to this amount of variation. Variations should be very small- tiny variations in the amount of silver visible on the star tops, things like that.

On that we can agree, and why I believe this has nothing to do with the stamping process, and simply more material has been removed.

Evitzee · Jul 2, 2025

It would seem that the original specifications of the die were such that the range of machining is small in order to not erase definition of the zipper, paw and right foot edge, but to fully delineate the stars. Not enough machining will allow good definition of Snoopy's features at the expense of well defined stars. Too much machining erases Snoopy's parts but shows good definition of the stars. Staying within that range is probably difficult as there are various factors at play; thickness of the silver blank, state of the die, pressure used, and the accuracy of the machining. A parameter out of spec will throw the final product off. The whole process is probably far more difficult than just stamping a coin like article with no subsequent use of lacquer and machining.

It seems that earlier examples look better overall, maybe they took more care to give a good final product during introduction, and as production ramped up to meet demand the acceptable range was changed to keep production humming along. We'll never know, and eventually all this will blow over.

ErichPryde · Jul 2, 2025

Archer
On that we can agree, and why I believe this has nothing to do with the stamping process, and simply more material has been removed.

The thing is, it could possibly be any of these factors. If you decrease the amount of blue enamel added but keep the amount of grinding time the same, you're going to get a similar result to increasing the amount of time you grind away material.

And in fact, another factor that I haven't really considered is the thickness of the subdial. So it probably is technically feasible to determine exactly which of these variables has changed. I'm not attached to the weak strike/damaged die theory.

ErichPryde · Jul 2, 2025

Evitzee
It would seem that the original specifications of the die were such that the range of machining is small in order to not erase definition of the zipper, paw and right foot edge, but to fully delineate the stars. Not enough machining will allow good definition of Snoopy's features at the expense of well defined stars. Too much machining erases Snoopy's parts but shows good definition of the stars. Staying within that range is probably difficult as there are various factors at play; thickness of the silver blank, state of the die, pressure used, and the accuracy of the machining. A parameter out of spec will throw the final product off. The whole process is probably far more difficult than just stamping a coin like article with no subsequent use of lacquer or machining.

I agree, but it isn't 1950, it's 2025. I don't think that these factors are probably that difficult to computer control when we can measure things down to much finer tolerances then we could even a few decades ago. As far as getting more detail to the stars without sacrificing detail to snoopy, make a new master die.

That said, I would expect a relatively high rejection rate of this type of dial, which is clearly not happening.

ErichKeane · Jul 2, 2025

ErichPryde
The thing is, it could possibly be any of these factors. If you decrease the amount of blue enamel added but keep the amount of grinding time the same, you're going to get a similar result to increasing the amount of time you grind away material.

And in fact, another factor that I haven't really considered is the thickness of the subdial. So it probably is technically feasible to determine exactly which of these variables has changed. I'm not attached to the weak strike/damaged die theory.

Agreed completely, I didn't think about the dial being thinner, but that could cause this change too. There are a handful of changes that could cause the interaction between the die, dial, and grinder, such that changing any part of it could cause changes.

ErichPryde
I agree, but it isn't 1950, it's 2025. I don't think that these factors are probably that difficult to computer control when we can measure things down to much finer tolerances then we could even a few decades ago. As far as getting more detail to the stars without sacrificing detail to snoopy, make a new master die.

That said, I would expect a relatively high rejection rate of this type of dial, which is clearly not happening.

Agreed here a bunch too. As you've mentioned, the scale at which this is happening is 'small', but there are multiple industries that do much smaller features much more accurately. So I don't think Omega should be getting much of a pass with inconsistencies here.

I'm guessing the original die was hand-graved by an artist (The macro images in particular make me think this) , so there might be a bit of 'we are stuck with what we have' for the die without changing the design.

All that, my dog isn't in this fight anyway. I hope Omega makes customers affected happy, but this is just a curiosity to me.

Evitzee · Jul 2, 2025

ErichPryde
I agree, but it isn't 1950, it's 2025. I don't think that these factors are probably that difficult to computer control when we can measure things down to much finer tolerances then we could even a few decades ago. As far as getting more detail to the stars without sacrificing detail to snoopy, make a new master die.

That said, I would expect a relatively high rejection rate of this type of dial, which is clearly not happening.

Don't disagree with you, precision work of this type is done all the time now. We don't know what the rejection rate is in this production, maybe it is high and Omega decided it was too high from an economic and production standpoint and lowered the acceptable range. Only Omega knows, and they'll never talk.

ErichPryde · Jul 2, 2025

Evitzee
Only Omega knows, and they'll never talk

Ha. I think we all agree on this on point.

pdxleaf · Jul 2, 2025

Having identified these differences, regardless the cause, will likely help collectors in 25 years who are trying to figure out if they have the real deal.

ErichPryde · Jul 2, 2025

pdxleaf
Having identified these differences, regardless the cause, will likely help collectors in 25 years who are trying to figure out if they have the real deal.

Early 1800s coin variations all over again

ErichKeane · Jul 2, 2025

pdxleaf
Having identified these differences, regardless the cause, will likely help collectors in 25 years who are trying to figure out if they have the real deal.

Ooof, could you imagine if no one had noticed for another 25 years, and someone stopped by with a "is this real?" post and we(or the AI that replaces us) all called it out as a redial 😁

ErichPryde · Jul 2, 2025

ErichKeane
Ooof, could you imagine if no one had noticed for another 25 years, and someone stopped by with a "is this real?" post and we(or the AI that replaces us) all called it out as a redial 😁

An exact same conversation would happen, we would squint and squabble over thousands of pictures on the internet, and we would come to the same conclusions. We would have a zipperless Snoopy variety, full zipper, four stars, five stars, the famous "no star" (under snoopy's toe) variety, and of course the one footed variety and finally, the sought after fingerless snoopy.

Archer · Jul 2, 2025

ErichPryde
I agree, but it isn't 1950, it's 2025. I don't think that these factors are probably that difficult to computer control when we can measure things down to much finer tolerances then we could even a few decades ago. As far as getting more detail to the stars without sacrificing detail to snoopy, make a new master die.

That said, I would expect a relatively high rejection rate of this type of dial, which is clearly not happening.

Technology is great, and things like CNC machines can be very useful in the watch production business. I’ve seen it used many times in factories, and one example comes to mind.

I was in the Patek factory and came to a CNC station where bridges were being engraved. They were held in a very expensive to make vacuum fixture, and then all the text was engraved. Here’s the fixture…you can see bridges in there as well:

There were two ladies unloading the parts and they mentioned to me that the bridges were all scrap, because the engraving that had just finished was too deep. I asked if I could have one, and they obliged. Here it is:

So, they had cut the bridge out, bored all the holes, installed the jewels, chamfered the edges, added countersinks on the holes. All that work on 25 bridges and they were all scrap likely because someone put in an incorrect Z axis offset. Having programmed CNC machines and run them, it’s easy make such a mistake on a run of parts like this.

Computer controls do not eliminate human error. Again to me this is far more likely a machining issue than a little used die wearing out.

By the way I’ve posted about this factory before, and have mentioned that they ran some of the CNC operations “lights out” meaning that they pushed the start button at the end of the day, then turned the lights out and let it run unattended. Watch production is very unglamorous in real life.

By the way, rejection rates are an interesting topic. Back before I became a watchmaker I was a full time engineer for an automotive parts supplier, tier 1 if you know what that means. I went through the introduction of quality systems, such as ISO 9000, TS 16909, etc. In all the watch factories I’ve been through, there was a dearth of quality information posted in the factories. I was used to seeing it on information boards all over the shop floor. The exception was at Patek, as they had quality information on several boards. When I looked at the numbers, they were atrocious compared to the types of numbers that would be barely acceptable in the automotive world.

I know you have mentioned that these are Veblen goods, and you expect tight tolerances and top quality at least in part because of that. In my experience the reality doesn’t match that expectation, unless you get to a much higher tier than Omega sits at.

These are made in factories, and those factories are not much different than any other factory making some other widget. People there are factory workers just like those who assemble your cars, washing machines, TV’s, etc.

kidnamedomega · Jul 2, 2025

When I first noticed this, I was alarmed because I’ve never seen discussion around it, and it seems like the kind of discrepancy you’d discover on a fake. I mean, we have superclones for other brands with less obvious deviation. But as we’ve long since determined there’s no valid concern over genuineness, this is, as ErichKeane said, more of a curiosity than anything else.

And hopefully, if nothing else comes of it, someone down the line looking to pick up a used Snoopy (or sell one) will be armed with the knowledge that this variation doesn’t indicate a counterfeit product (as pdxleaf suggested).

These are made in factories, and those factories are not much different than any other factory making some other widget. People there are factory workers just like those who assemble your cars, washing machines, TV’s, etc.

While we’d hope for better I’m unfortunately unsurprised, but I’ll say that I’ve been really happy with Omega’s customer service responses in the past so perhaps that’s where they make up for any perceived deviation or mistake in their manufacture (remains to be seen how they respond here).

ErichPryde · Jul 2, 2025

Archer
Computer controls do not eliminate human error.

I agree- and I'll point out that fairly early on, I suggested that whatever the cause, this was human error/quality control. In post 25 I said:

ErichPryde
obviously I don't know what happened, but I am going to assume human error.

And-

Archer
Again to me this is far more likely a machining issue than a little used die wearing out.

Archer- I've already stated I'm not that attached to the worn die theory, and I'm not. I threw out that idea before I had a perfect understanding of the manufacturing process. It was a fun theory, but I agree- this could be explained other ways, and I would genuinely be satisfied with any answer.

I don't believe my theory was correct and I don't care.

Archer
I know you have mentioned that these are Veblen goods, and you expect tight tolerances and top quality at least in part because of that.

Actually, I don't expect that there won't be errors. What I do expect is that Omega will "take care" of the customers that express dissatisfaction, and that is what I have observed in the past.

I genuinely, honestly don't even expect Omega to admit there was a QC issue (which I also said earlier). So far, that's been my experience with Omega- not perfection in tolerance, but a fairly high level of customer service. That's what I would expect of a veblen good or a luxury item and it's what I have seen so far.

The veblen comment wasn't aimed at you, but was in response to the very tired, very old argument that Omega watches "aren't luxury items" (and therefore we shouldn't have luxury expectations). It seems to come up any time someone has an issue with Omega quality, even though it really has nothing to do with whether or not Omega is going to fix whatever issue the complaining person has. It's a narrow definitional argument with little bearing and close to zero value, as generally, "luxury" and "veblen" are interchangeable. And Omega watches are veblen goods. And honestly, I'd be curious to know just how many veblen goods in 2025 are machine made, because I'd be willing to bet it's a big percent. There are errors, and luxury companies take care of their complaining customers. Perhaps too much and too often, even.

Strict definitions are super useful, but not when we use them to inhibit communication or invalidate by questionable exclusion. And the "Omega isn't a luxury product" is ever so often used to do that---- and you know what? those posters sure seem to be taken care of by Omega anyway, despite forum members saying "you're expecting too much from a watch that isn't a luxury item."

A fair question:
Why don't we see more users say "Omega may be a luxury item, but it isn't haute horology" or "I don't like the term luxury item, but veblen good is fine" or something to either effect? Because much more often than not, this argument is used to invalidate. I don't even think it's always intentional, it's just part of the internet culture of communication. Strict definitions, clarity. Not blanket statements and invalidation.

I'm not saying you do this, btw. EDIT- to clarify, I genuinely am not saying you are doing this. You're sticking with what you think Omega will say based upon your past experience, and I do (genuinely) understand why you're doing that.

And look, maybe you don't agree with something here, but we've had some good conversations elsewhere so I hope for some attempted understanding, or reasonable dialogue.

Bottom line on this point: I don't expect perfection from Omega or Rolex. I have observed that they often take care of their customers, even if it is something as ridiculous as a date window numeral that is technically within factory spec but ever so slightly noticeably off.

Anyway- all of that aside, for me the bigger topic here - and it seems to be where we are really stuck- is that whatever Omega's standards for production may be, there are standards for engravings.

I get that it's a watch, but it's also an engraving. And I think that's where a lot of the communication breakdown in this thread seems to be happening. I'm looking at the engraved/stamped portion from the perspective of those standards, and other people seem to be looking at it as if it is just a watch. But it's both.

ErichKeane · Jul 2, 2025

Bottom line on this point: I don't expect perfection from Omega or Rolex. I have observed that they often take care of their customers, even if it is something as ridiculous as a date window numeral that is technically within factory spec but ever so slightly noticeably off.

Yeah, I suspect this is where it'll go too. Omega warranty service (and Rolex!) have both been pretty solid from most stories I hear. I presume they would do what they could to make customers happy. I don't think I've heard of an Omega warranty resulting in the person being upset afterwards.

I DID hear of (at a local Boutique from another customer): He dropped his speedy (he says he actually 'spiked' it in an attempt to catch it) on a tile floor, which bent one of the lugs beyond repair. Despite it being his fault, and him thinking best Omega would do would be a discount on a replacement, or an expensive repair, Omega covered a whole new case under warranty, AND made sure it was the same serial number.

In general, they have a pretty solid CS department, which is what I think you/I believe is going to come into play. They won't admit any amount of fault (or even the existence of a problem), but will do what they can to appease those who complain/send their watches in.

ErichPryde · Jul 2, 2025

ErichKeane
Yeah, I suspect this is where it'll go too. Omega warranty service (and Rolex!) have both been pretty solid from most stories I hear. I presume they would do what they could to make customers happy. I don't think I've heard of an Omega warranty resulting in the person being upset afterwards.

I DID hear of (at a local Boutique from another customer): He dropped his speedy (he says he actually 'spiked' it in an attempt to catch it) on a tile floor, which bent one of the lugs beyond repair. Despite it being his fault, and him thinking best Omega would do would be a discount on a replacement, or an expensive repair, Omega covered a whole new case under warranty, AND made sure it was the same serial number.

In general, they have a pretty solid CS department, which is what I think you/I believe is going to come into play. They won't admit any amount of fault (or even the existence of a problem), but will do what they can to appease those who complain/send their watches in.

I understand that Omega recently updated their warranty to even cover accidental drops.

Archer · Jul 2, 2025

ErichPryde
And look, maybe you don't agree with something here, but we've had some good conversations elsewhere so I hope for some attempted understanding, or reasonable dialogue.

I thought that’s what we were having…