Who really invented the Co-ax escapement?

Posts
80
Likes
16
Good morning,

Recently, I have found that Mr. Charles Fasholdt invented the Co-Axial escapement back in 1859 and Mr. George Daniels just improved it. How true is that statement?

Does it mean that Co-axial technology is not new and not that unique as described (thegreatest invention in mechanics for the last 25 years)

Professional watchmakers (Archer) and experienced members replies will be much appreciated.
Edited:
 
Posts
2,438
Likes
3,314
Good morning,

Recently, I have found that Mr. Charles Fasholdt invented the Co-Axial escapement back in 1859 and Mr. George Daniels just improved it. How true is that statement?

Does it mean that Co-axial technology is not new and not that unique as described (greatest invention in mechanics for the last 25 years)

Professional watchmakers (Archer) and experienced members replies will be much appreciated.

I have read that argument as well, which is nicely summarized here:

https://watchesbysjx.com/2023/02/george-daniels-co-axial-fasoldt-chronometer-escapement.html

Daniel’s clearly knew of the Fasoldt escapement, as he wrote on about it in is early books. At the same time, his co-axial movement was enough different (or improved) that he was able to get a patent for it, and the examiners did compare it to the Fasoldt escapement and other ones, but judged is sufficiently different to patent.

Omega saw a marketing opportunity by commercializing it and marketing it as “the greatest watch invention in the last 25 years.”

Was it? That is debatable. One could argue Seiko’s spring drive technology (patented just a few years later) might be more unique and original.

Regardless of originality and significance, it was clearly a marketing and commercial success for Omega.
 
Posts
1,598
Likes
2,331
Also of note, the co-axial thing gets very hyped here in Omega-land. (And I am a full time resident of said land.) But, in my not-insignificant experience owning nice watches from many brands, I have not personally seen any meaningful difference in timekeeping between co-axial and non co-axial watches, either within Omega or across brands. My most accurate watches have all had traditional escapements.

YMMV.
Edited:
 
Posts
80
Likes
16
Also of note, the co-axial thing gets very hyped here in Omega-land. (And I am a full time resident of said land.) But, in my not-insignificant experience owning nice watches from many brands, I have not personally seen any meaningful difference in timekeeping between co-axial and non co-axial watches, either within Omega or across brands. My most accurate watches have all had traditional escarpments.

YMMV.

Some people are saying co-axial is not about timekeeping but about longer service intervals.

thank you for your insights.
Will read an article
 
Posts
1,598
Likes
2,331
Also not true in my experience. 😀 But certainly true in others’.
 
Posts
11,283
Likes
19,762
I see the coaxial as a huge negative. It seems to offer zero benefits over a standard escapement yet hugely restricts who can service your watch, with the manufacturer being the only option in many areas
 
Posts
373
Likes
445
It's definitely a win for Omega, since they can have most if not all Co-Axials serviced by factory (unless an independent is Omega-trained with access to parts).

Love the technology associated with the Co-Axial. But, there is something still so very charming to me with say an 1120 (based on an 2892-A2) in which my local, trusted watchmaker can service. ETA-based movements also tend to be thinner than today's thicker ones.
 
Posts
2,438
Likes
3,314
It's definitely a win for Omega, since they can have most if not all Co-Axials serviced by factory (unless an independent is Omega-trained with access to parts).

Love the technology associated with the Co-Axial. But, there is something still so very charming to me with say an 1120 (based on an 2892-A2) in which my local, trusted watchmaker can service. ETA-based movements also tend to be thinner than today's thicker ones.

All very true. But would have been harder for Omega to justify doubling and tripling prices in less than 15 years without loosing sales.
 
Posts
211
Likes
124
Omega doesn't really cash in on the co-axial escapement. Their watches are comparable in price to Breitling, IWC. Cheaper than Rolex. Even in Swatch group they are below Glashutte, Blancpain and Breguet. I notice no difference with the co-axial escapement in accuracy, robustness or longer repair interval. Omega's Speedmaster Professional only recently received the co-axial escapement and they brag about it being the only watch approved by NASA.
 
Posts
9,527
Likes
15,021
Some people are saying co-axial is not about timekeeping but about longer service intervals.

thank you for your insights.
Will read an article
This has been thoroughly debunked. Even if the escapement needed less servicing, and that is debatable, the rest of the movement which is unchanged still has the same requirements so it’s nonsense to suggest this.
 
Posts
2,358
Likes
3,754
Well George believed it to be true. Told it to me personally.

Curious how we expect people like him to last forever. Guess his warranty wore out as well.

I still remember when he asked me when I was going to make my watch.

I wonder how many have used his book to scratch build a watch?

I give it a thought from time to time. Would probably use a Landeron or Valjoux layout. I did start to make a wheel cutter out of chip making equipment to cut some repeater pinions. Then the dot com bubble popped and I lost the shared makerspace. Never set this stuff up in the new one. It requires a really clean work area.

Henry Freid wanted me to do a CAD layout of a Torubion. So it would have been a co axial tourbion as this was hot stuff in the mid 1990s.

When Henry, and then My mentor John Grass passed away there was not much point in spending time on this. I also got into Pipe organs and used the Cad and photogrameritry to make a Calliope.

Still have the repeater. Keep thinking I need to put the parts for sale online. It came from the Oakland hills fire in 1990. Still warm and wet. What survived from the dealers collection. The steel quickly rusted. I also got a clock from the earthquake (Upstairs) and another one from a central valley flood which should be dried out by now. The old guys were pretty good to me back then. Different class of folk.
 
Posts
80
Likes
16
Surprisingly, I didn’t hear from anyone a clear answer.
Next question could be, is it difficult to get a patent? Could we say, that examinators were not competent enough (and not able to explain the difference between Daniels and Fasholdt escapements). People there are not watch experts.
Is it true they reject the first attempt to patent, saying the same escapement ideas were in the past?
Is it true Omega refused Daniels-escapement? Is it true Smith refused it as well? Is it true ,now it looks like escapement from Charles Fasholdt?

Any thoughts are very welcome!
Edited:
 
Posts
20,204
Likes
46,865
Some people are saying co-axial is not about timekeeping but about longer service intervals.
Obviously this is how the co-axial movement was promoted. No lubrication, longer service intervals. However, Omega recommends servicing their watches every 5-8 years, and doesn't appear to distinguish co-axial from non-co-axial. Rolex recommends a service every 10 years. Interpret those data as you like, but they come from the manufacturers websites.
 
Posts
1,598
Likes
2,331
Surprisingly, I didn’t hear from anyone a clear answer.
Next question could be, is it difficult to get a patent? Could we say, that examinators were not competent enough (and not able to explain the difference between Daniels and Fasholdt escapements). People there are not watch experts.
Is it true they reject the first attempt to patent, saying the same escapement ideas were in the past?
Is it true Omega refused Daniels-escapement? Is it true Smith refused it as well? Is it true ,now it looks like escapement from Charles Fasholdt?

Any thoughts are very welcome!

The thread got hijacked a bit by people opining about the escapement (I’m partly to blame for that). But there was indeed a clear answer:

Fasoldt invented an escapement that was technically “co-axial,” yes, but quite different from what we and Omega mean by “co-axial escapement”; Daniels invented and patented the Omega device—it’s not ambiguous.
 
Posts
9,527
Likes
15,021
Obviously this is how the co-axial movement was promoted. No lubrication, longer service intervals. However, Omega recommends servicing their watches every 5-8 years, and doesn't appear to distinguish co-axial from non-co-axial. Rolex recommends a service every 10 years. Interpret those data as you like, but they come from the manufacturers websites.
And that was probably Daniel's intention but to make them reliable, Omega co-ax escapements do need lubrication. There is nothing I have seen that suggests persuasively that a coax movement can run longer between servicing. It's elegant engineering, particularly in its ultimate 3 layer form but it answered a question no one was actually asking. And still aren't.

A previous run out for discussion of relative reliability:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/co-axial-escapement-why-omega-puts-lub-on-it.87926/
 
Posts
154
Likes
117
Obviously this is how the co-axial movement was promoted. No lubrication, longer service intervals. However, Omega recommends servicing their watches every 5-8 years, and doesn't appear to distinguish co-axial from non-co-axial. Rolex recommends a service every 10 years. Interpret those data as you like, but they come from the manufacturers websites.
A company can double the claimed service interval and increase the the initial cost by the cost of one service (or more).
 
Posts
886
Likes
469
Obviously this is how the co-axial movement was promoted. No lubrication, longer service intervals. However, Omega recommends servicing their watches every 5-8 years, and doesn't appear to distinguish co-axial from non-co-axial. Rolex recommends a service every 10 years. Interpret those data as you like, but they come from the manufacturers websites.

I was always under the impression Omega was always recommending 7-8 years.
5-8 is a reasonable reflection of practical realities.
 
Posts
886
Likes
469
And that was probably Daniel's intention but to make them reliable, Omega co-ax escapements do need lubrication. There is nothing I have seen that suggests persuasively that a coax movement can run longer between servicing. It's elegant engineering, particularly in its ultimate 3 layer form but it answered a question no one was actually asking. And still aren't.

A previous run out for discussion of relative reliability:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/co-axial-escapement-why-omega-puts-lub-on-it.87926/

As we all know, lubes don't last indefinately whether in service or not.
In theory the Co-axial was not intended to require lubrication but the reity is different.
Puting the escapement issue aside, the rest of the movement needs periodical maintenance in order to remain healthy and viable over the long term.
Edited: