Reviving this thread just because I just found it and wanted to share a bit of little-known knowledge regarding the Skyfall vs Spectre.
Although the Skyfall is merely labeled co-axial chronometer and the Spectre is master co-axial chronometer, they are nearly identical. The Spectre gained master status due to the increased anti magnetic certification thanks to the advent of the silicon balance spring. However, few know that the Skyfall is also equipped with it. The Skyfall was not tested for master certification and thus was not labeled as such but you can see the Si14 designation on the pictogram card.
A few more amagnetic parts were added to the Spectre but when a Skyfall is taken in for service, those parts are updated to the newer ones which makes it equal to the Spectre's. Thus, the Spectre does not necessarily have a superior movement.
Another trivia tidbit is that the hands and markers on the Skyfall are white gold vs Rhodium on the Spectre.
I lean for the Skyfall. I originally purchased one at the tail end of the frenzy during the COVID era in mint condition with box and papers for around $5,500 USD plus import duties. I sold it and hated myself until I recently re-acquired one for just under $2900. Not as clean but I still love it. Threw it on a PCL bracelet and I feel I have the best of both worlds.
A while back, I started a thread that got into the discussion about the early 8500 movement (in the Skyfall in particular) vs the Master Chronometer 8500s.
It is here: 8500s and silicon balance spring
S SpqrYour information is incorrect. The Aqua Terra 41.5mm “Skyfall” has a Cal.8500B movement with a silicon balance spring. The revised blue dial 41.5mm that appear in Spectre has the Cal.8500G. The use of a silicon balance spring does not allow the Cal.8500G resist magnetic fields of at least 15000 Gauss. It is the addition of Nivagauss staves, amagnetic parts, non-ferrous metals etc that allow that. None of which will be added to a Cal.8500B at service as the entire movement would effectively be replaced. You are misleading the readers of the forum. Please check with an Omega service centre and watchmaker (I did on an Omega watchmaking course and was given a full history of the in-house co-axial movements from the original Cal.8500A to the then latest Cal.3861) before writing such nonsense.
It is one of the great achievements of this forum to share knowledge about our beloved hobby with others and to learn from each other. Everyone who contributes to this deserves my respect.
Being arrogant and impertinent less so.
As I stated in response to your austere comments pointing this out on the other thread , I stand corrected. But please don't behead me for trying to help based on the limited information I had on hand at the time I started the post and in that thread, I tried to point out my prior inconsistent statements as I found out more information and the thread expanded.
That said, I'm glad someone like you took the time to obtain a reliable, In-depth education on the subject and share it here in order to set the record straight. We are here to share our knowledge and support for our watch enthusiasm.
Can you share what else you learned at the Omega course, such as what are the additional amagnetic parts and non-ferrous materials? What is the magnetic resistance of the 8500b compared to the 8500a?
In doing additional research, I misunderstood earlier statements regarding the upgrading of the 8500b at service. It is actually the 8500a that will be upgraded with a Si14 balance spring at service.
Here's another article giving a more thorough explanation: https://watchcharts.com/articles/p/...500a-8500b-8500g-8800-8900-co-axial-movements
S SpqrIt is about sharing knowledge. Not about sharing misinformation and utter rubbish. Pointing out errors is not arrogance or impertinence. In this case misinformation and nonsense was being propagated that could lead some less informed readers to conclude their watches were anti-magnetic to 15000 Gauss when they were not. That could lead to damage and inconvenience to the owners. It needed correction in fairly blunt terms. So before misusing terms like arrogance and impertinence try reading the whole thread and the other thread in which the same nonsense was repeated. I expect if you had had your watch magnetised because you accepted the misinformation you would not be too concerned about the alleged arrogance.
S SpqrIt is about sharing knowledge. Not about sharing misinformation and utter rubbish. Pointing out errors is not arrogance or impertinence. In this case misinformation and nonsense was being propagated that could lead some less informed readers to conclude their watches were anti-magnetic to 15000 Gauss when they were not. That could lead to damage and inconvenience to the owners. It needed correction in fairly blunt terms. So before misusing terms like arrogance and impertinence try reading the whole thread and the other thread in which the same nonsense was repeated. I expect if you had had your watch magnetised because you accepted the misinformation you would not be too concerned about the alleged arrogance.
You keep doubling down on impertinent posts.
It is not only your right to point out misinformation, it is also exactly what is a desirable contribution to this forum.
But you can do it respectfully and sophisticatedly, or arrogantly and impudently. The choice is yours.
S SpqrThe misinformation could have led, and might already have led, to readers relying on it to their detriment and ending up with damaged watches and potentially repair costs. It needed correction. You seem to mistake direct factual statements for arrogance. Your use of impudently is grammatically incorrect. Accusing others of being rude, insulting and disrespectful is offensive when what you are criticising is factual statements that are not dressed up with platitudes.
S SpqrIt is about sharing knowledge. Not about sharing misinformation and utter rubbish. Pointing out errors is not arrogance or impertinence. In this case misinformation and nonsense was being propagated that could lead some less informed readers to conclude their watches were anti-magnetic to 15000 Gauss when they were not. That could lead to damage and inconvenience to the owners. It needed correction in fairly blunt terms. So before misusing terms like arrogance and impertinence try reading the whole thread and the other thread in which the same nonsense was repeated. I expect if you had had your watch magnetised because you accepted the misinformation you would not be too concerned about the alleged arrogance.
