Who did it better? Omega, Longines, or IWC?

The IWC and the Longines are 16 or 17 jewel watches depending on whether the dial side of the center wheels are jeweled. The Omega is a 15 jewel at most. The Omega and the Longines are probably made from the same standard ebauche and finished in house. The finish on the Longines version is much better than the crude looking Omega. The IWC may or may not be an in-house movement but it is certainly finished better. The IWC has a micrometer adjustment on the regulator while both the Omega and the Longines have crude friction regulators.

As far as the aesthetics of the cases and dials, I suppose that is a matter of taste. My taste leans toward the IWC. I think it has a very elegant look. For me the IWC wins hands down...or up for that matter....on all counts.

JohnCote

😕

An "ebauche" is an unfinished watch movement or the parts to make a watch movement. Generally speaking in the Swiss system not every company makes or designs every movement they use. They buy movements or ebauches from a supplier and finish the movments or ebauches into watch movements to their specs. See the definition in Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ébauche

Note the very close physical similarity between the layout of the plates, the winding wheels and the regulators of the Longines and the Omega movements. Omega or Longines or someone else or some combination of someones else made these base movements, Omega and Longines finished them differently.

JohnCote

This would be similar to Rolex using Zenith ELP movements in the Daytona or Vacheron using JLC movements or almost everybody using Valjoux movements. They all take the movements and finish them differently. Some to a wonderful job and some don't so much.

JC

John, I know what an ebauche is. These are not ebauches, they're separate in house movements by both companies. It stands to reason that occasionally there will be similarities, but these two calibers in question did not come from the same source and then were finished differently.

Dennis you sound pretty sure of yourself. I will admit that the layouts are not exactly the same but if they are indeed in-house movements the two companies either did a lot of copying of each other or they both copied someone else. Look at the regulator indicator arms on both movements.

If both companies actually claim that these are in-house movements they are using the term very loosely. Don't want to start a fight...just sayin'

JohnCote

All these have the same layout, with different plate shapes - and the Zenith even has the ratchet's click in the same exact spot as the Omega.

Zenith:



Hamilton:




Ball:




Point is there are TONS of pocketwatch, and wristwatch, movements that are very similar in design.

Again, the Zenith is much closer to the Longines and the Omega. The 16s Waltham Ball and the 16s Hamilton 972 are somewhat similar but I can pretty much prove and guarantee that Waltham and Hamilton each made every component of each watch in their own factory. In the 1930s when the Swiss watches were made I doubt that the same could be said for the Swiss companies.

I guess I would like to make a couple of interesting points about American watchmaking. First and very important to the discussion of why some American pocket watches, especially in the early to mid 20th century seem similar is that American companies did not make their own cases. They thought it was important to standardize watch sizes so that all American 16s watches would fit in generic 16s cases made by the likes of Dueber, Philadelphia, Jas Boss etc. when you standardize watches to size the layouts look alike because certain angles etc are simply optimal. However, even having said this, the major American watch companies were set up from the beginning with the goal of mass producing all of the mechanical parts of their own watches in house. Some may have contracted out dials and with very few minor exceptions none of them made their own cases but they made their own plates and screws and springs etc. The Swiss watch industry started differently with parts and pieces being made by different families/companies with the "Name" companies doing final finishing and assembly. The Swiss began to evolve to the American system toward the end of the 19th and into the 20th centuries but with a few exceptions most Swiss "name" companies still contracted out a lot well into the 20th century. Even if they had their own designs they contracted out more parts and pieces than the big name American companies did. Swiss politics probably dictated part of this.

The second point about American watches is the exception to the rule. That exception is brought to mind by your nice Ball Waltham. The Ball Watch company really did not make/produce/manufacture much of anything. They contracted other American companies to modify their existing watch designs to fit Ball's specifications. All Ball did, if they even did much of this, was some finishing and adjusting. On the surface, all of the 16s Balls from Waltham, Hamilton, and Illinois look close to the same. However if you look closely the parts are Hamilton or Waltham or Illinois and they mostly won't interchange. Maybe Ball was a little more..."Swiss".

Anyway, it is late here in the US Eastern Time Zone. I am tired and probably incoherent.

Best,

JohnCote

BTW, the hairspring stud and the regulator etc are exactly the same on both the Zenith and the Omega. On the Illinois Ball, the Hamilton Ball and the Waltham Ball...let alone the in-house production of all of these companies these assemblies are all very different.

JC

I like clever people with knowledge of their game and a conversation's ebb and flow... great discussion chaps!