# Omega Quartz, nothing more than a mall watch



## traintime (Nov 18, 2008)

Hi Everyone,

Just came back from visiting Omega's new Boutique in NYC, and was shocked to find out my 1600.00 Omega Quartz Seamaster is just another mall watch! They were very professional when they asked if they could check my 2 week old Omega Quartz for timing, I said sure, why not. They told me it was within their specs and runing 3 seconds slow a week. Now i have a 13 year old Swiss Army Officer that runs within 3 seconds a Month! and a Tag Link, both Quartz that runs within 10 sec. a year!
So what is up with Omega? How can they market a MSLP 2000.00 Watch that is just a Disposable Mall watch? They told me there is no adjustment in the new Seamasters, if it get's really bad, like 8 seconds a week, They
"might" just swap the whole movement for a new one, but that would be up to the Discretion of the service center. I think I saw it on one of the fourm's that Omega's job was to make money for Swatch and they do it well!

Disgusted with Omega,
Traintime


----------



## Cobalt (Jan 27, 2008)

Train, that truly sucks. You're talking roughly 2.5 minutes slow per year, which is not good for an expensive quartz (not really good for any quartz, come to think of it). I have 2 Seiko 8F33s, rated (correctly) to 20 seconds per year, and new they're in the $300 - $400 range.

I wish I had some words of wisdom to offer you. My Bond SMP is 3 seconds fast per month, which is overall acceptable to me (I stop and adjust the watch 6 times a year for month and DLS). My Tag Formula, however, is a freak - it's accurate to about 1 second per year (and cost much less than the Bond). I think when you're dealing with watches that use ETA movements (which I find to be very good), I think it's really the luck of the draw, and depends largely on the individual watch.

Can you find anything in print regarding proposed accuracy standards for your watch? If so, you might argue for a new movement while the watch is still under warranty. As you're not happy with your expensive purchase, I would definitely make some noise about it, to the particular dealer, and (if necessary) to the Omega company (in the form of an email). Let the boutique manager know that you're a *collector*, and that this is turning you *off the brand*, and don't be afraid to show your knowledge of watches: ie., your next watch will be a Breitling Colt Quartz (one of the SMP's prime competitors), as it's powered by a "Super Quartz, thermo-compensated movement, accurate to 10 seconds a year, with an 8 year battery," etc. (also by ETA).

The way I see it, you have 4 choices open to you:

1. live with it
2. persuade Omega to swap the movement for free (this seems to be the most desirable avenue to take)
3. purchase a new movement (probably for about $50 - $100) and have it put in. You might check Ofrei for this: http://www.ofrei.com/page151.html Make sure you know the ETA movement that corresponds to your watch model.
4. sell the watch

Can you provide some more info about your watch, and maybe post a pic? I had no luck on google with the reference #s. Also, you might see what the brothers on the Omega forum have to say about this. Luck mate.


----------



## AAWATCHES (May 2, 2009)

2.5 MINUTES A YEAR????

*Modern Quartz (battery) Operated non-COSC Certified watch*Worst Case Scenario+/-2 seconds per day99.997% accuracyTypical+/- 1 seconds per day99.998% accuracyExcellent+/-0.5 seconds per day99.999% accuracy

The Seamaster automatic models have received a Chronometer certificate from COSC. This certifies that the movement measured within -4 to +6 seconds of variation per day. Like most fine watch makers, OMEGA does not bother to certify their quartz models.
Many owners on the Internet have reported their Seamasters often far exceed COSC standards in daily use. Reports of automatics staying within +/-3 seconds per day and quartz staying within +/-3 seconds per month are not uncommon. This makes the Seamaster Professional one of the better choices for a highly accurate wristwatch. Each watch is different. Mechanical watches are much more prone to variation based on how you wear and store them. Because of this, the differing variations of a mechanical watch tend to cancel each other out somewhat, making the watches usually much more accurate than the single-day allowed variations may make it seem.
Overall, since many of us have to reset our watches twice a year to comply with daylight saving time or other local time changes, if your watch stays within 1 minute of correct time between those changes, you should have a watch that is more than sufficiently accurate for normal use.


----------



## shandy (Feb 13, 2008)

I stand to be corrected on this but I believe the movement in your watch is a bog standard ETA quartz movement, if you want to keep to Omega and quartz for the same price you can get a Constellation double eagle like I have. 
That is an entirley different movement and accurate to +- 10 seconds a year, it is adjustable as well!

I think that the model you have I would only get in a mechanical movement, from the timing you say it is up to the standard quartz watch around 15 seconds a month

I agree, at that price there is no excuse in having a bog standard quartz movement, you would think they would put an HEQ movement of some sort in all their quartz watches, without it it makes the watch and even more expensive piece of stainless steel jewelry!


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

You guys are making a mistake responding to this troll. Anyone who can not tell the difference between a Seamaster and a Shanghai does not deserve a response.


----------



## Iceberg (Aug 5, 2007)

Eeeb said:


> You guys are making a mistake responding to this troll. Anyone who can not tell the difference between a Seamaster and a Shanghai does not deserve a response.


I agree. I have had my QUARTZ SMP for over 2 years now and it is only off by a second(if that). So go figure..:roll:

Another Mall Watch.. Troll...:roll:


----------



## Mr_Pacman (Mar 17, 2006)

When you bought the watch, were you lead to believe that it had a certain type of movement in it.....or did you just assume it was going to have an adjustable movement?

Generally, these are the types of things you investigate BEFORE you make the purchase....not after. 

If you really want to get picky, I'm sure we could pick apart the mechanical version of the same watch and compare that movement to a Hamilton/Swiss Army using the same movement and I think you would be quite surprised at what you find......


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> You guys are making a mistake responding to this troll. Anyone who can not tell the difference between a Seamaster and a Shanghai does not deserve a response.


Hello? :-s


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Oh lordy, this is worth slipping out of 'lurk mode' for.

So, to summarise: the 1538 is a 'mall watch' which doesn't stand comparison with the thermocompensated Cal.1680 in the Double Eagle Constellation Perpetual. As a result Omega are ripping people off. Well, I own both a Double Eagle Connie and a SMP and I think that I know which I prefer. However, that's merely opinion so lets hit some facts...

The 1680 is a tidied up ETA 255.511. It is indeed a thermocompensated multijewel movement that can be reasonably expected to last a lifetime with a little TLC.

The 1538, on the other hand, is a tidied up ETA 255.461. While it is not thermocompensated, it is a multijewel movement that can reasonably be expected to last a lifetime with a little TLC.

Now, the more astute readers will have noticed the key fact here: 255.xxx. The movements are from the same family and, apart from TC all but identical. Not convinced? well, here's the evidence:










Now, I'm trying to think of a better three hand date Swiss movement than the ETA 255 movements but I'm hard pressed. The autoquartz maybe?

The fact is that the Seamaster Pro is designed to take watever you throw at it. Thermocompensation would be one more thing to go wrong. However, this means that it is a 32k quartz watch without thermocompensation and that means that the weak spot is temperature, just like every other non T/C movement. Ten seconds a month is about as good as it gets. Yes, some months it will be better, others worse. This is simply because the temperature will have changed. In fact, you could go back to the store, ask them to turn their heating up or down a little and then measure again. This is the only way you will get perfection with a non TC watch.

However, without TC you can get away with doing this:










As the old hands will remember, I argued years ago that the 1538 shouldn't be counted as a HEQ on the grounds that it was neither terribly intrinsically interesting, historically important nor thermocompensated. It is however a bloody good movement and one that deserves respect.


----------



## AAWATCHES (May 2, 2009)

M4tt said:


> Oh lordy, this is worth slipping out of 'lurk mode' for.
> 
> So, to summarise: the 1538 is a 'mall watch' which doesn't stand comparison with the thermocompensated Cal.1680 in the Double Eagle Constellation Perpetual. As a result Omega are ripping people off. Well, I own both a Double Eagle Connie and a SMP and I think that I know which I prefer. However, that's merely opinion so lets hit some facts...
> 
> ...


Hi M4tt, 
this is very impressive and also very interesting, but lets face it a high quality watch that is only 2.5 minutes off in a year is damn good, heck that is good enough for celestial navigation, this guy can still get his sextant out and find his way to the mall. By the way where can i get a copy of your spec sheets:-!


----------



## shandy (Feb 13, 2008)

very interesting argument M4TT. Being new to the HEQ game could you explain some things though. 

Why would a thermocompensated movement be more delicate, also in the real world why would you want to boil a watch?

In the image you show, I wonder if the Thermocompensated movement is the same as in the Connie, surely the 1680 is in fact based on the 252.511 movement which would make it not the same family (but I do not know as I am not familiar with how ETA group their movements in families)


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

M4tt said:


> Oh lordy, this is worth slipping out of 'lurk mode' for.
> 
> So, to summarise: the 1538 is a 'mall watch' which doesn't stand comparison with the thermocompensated Cal.1680 in the Double Eagle Constellation Perpetual. As a result Omega are ripping people off. Well, I own both a Double Eagle Connie and a SMP and I think that I know which I prefer. However, that's merely opinion so lets hit some facts...
> 
> ...


I believe that the entire point was NOT if ETA quartz movements are decent - you can buy with 100$ a quartz watch that can be expected to last a lifetime - the entire point was that Omega decided that customers paying close to 2000$ are not worth the extra 20$ to upgrade to a TC movement - and I have to subscribe to the opinion that such a policy might bring some extra money on the short term but will be highly destructive on the long term.


----------



## shandy (Feb 13, 2008)

catalin said:


> i believe that the entire point was not if eta quartz movements are decent - you can buy with 100$ a quartz watch that can be expected to last a lifetime - the entire point was that omega decided that customers paying close to 2000$ are not worth the extra 20$ to upgrade to a tc movement - and i have to subscribe to the opinion that such a policy might bring some extra money on the short term but will be highly destructive on the long term.


+1|>


----------



## dickstar (Sep 2, 2008)

Gone have the days of standard Omega quartz's being 5 seconds per month and the Megaquartz 2.4Mhz being 1 second per month!

I must admit I have a quartz SM300 and again my other 11 early omega Megaquartz's (raning from 32Khz to 2.4Mhz) the SMP300 is by far the worst time keeper!

Sigh, who said technology moves forward


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

AAWATCHES said:


> Hi M4tt,
> this is very impressive and also very interesting, but lets face it a high quality watch that is only 2.5 minutes off in a year is damn good, heck that is good enough for celestial navigation, this guy can still get his sextant out and find his way to the mall. By the way where can i get a copy of your spec sheets:-!


To members of this forum, off by 2.5 minutes/year is considered not just gawd awful, but sufficient cause for suicide. This is indeed mall-watch performance. Nobody here is interested in this accuracy level, much less from a $2000 watch. What exactly are we getting in such a watch? A better finished piece of jewelry? As others have pointed out, we can get ± 20 sec./year without breaking a sweat for $300. So, on the accuracy dimension, the Omega sucks. On the cachet/nice jewelry dimension, it fares somewhat better.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

M4tt said:


> Oh lordy, this is worth slipping out of 'lurk mode' for.
> 
> So, to summarise: the 1538 is a 'mall watch' which doesn't stand comparison with the thermocompensated Cal.1680 in the Double Eagle Constellation Perpetual. As a result Omega are ripping people off. Well, I own both a Double Eagle Connie and a SMP and I think that I know which I prefer. However, that's merely opinion so lets hit some facts...
> 
> The 1680 is a tidied up ETA 255.511...


Oh lordy, you should have stayed in 'lurk mode'...
Anyhow, as for punishment you ought to write it down 100 times:
_*Omega Cal.1680 = ETA 252.511*_


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

M4tt said:


> ....As the old hands will remember, I argued years ago that the 1538 shouldn't be counted as a HEQ on the grounds that it was neither terribly intrinsically interesting, historically important nor thermocompensated. It is however a bloody good movement and one that deserves respect.


I don't see the basis for your evaluation of this movement. It certainly can't be accuracy since its performance in this regard is no better than that of mall watches. Is it that the Omega 1538 is more rugged or reliable than other non-TC quartz movements? Better able to withstand high temperatures? Just what is it that makes it a "bloody good movement" deserving of our respect?


----------



## Redrum (Sep 17, 2008)

I'm probably wrong here, but i think Breitling has a deal with ETA, so only they can use the thermocompensated movements (they call them superquartz).
I agree on the fact that a quartz seamaster should have a tc quartz module.
For the OP, (if your not trolling) sell the Omega and buy a Breitling Colt quartz II.

Cheers everyone

RR


----------



## AAWATCHES (May 2, 2009)

South Pender said:


> To members of this forum, off by 2.5 minutes/year is considered not just gawd awful, but sufficient cause for suicide. This is indeed mall-watch performance. Nobody here is interested in this accuracy level, much less from a $2000 watch. What exactly are we getting in such a watch? A better finished piece of jewelry? As others have pointed out, we can get ± 20 sec./year without breaking a sweat for $300. So, on the accuracy dimension, the Omega sucks. On the cachet/nice jewelry dimension, it fares somewhat better.


2.5 minutes a year is within the specs for a non cosc watch, if you want a chronometer, you should buy one, than if it is not correct you have a basis for a complaint... when one purchases this watch they are paying for a good quality brand name watch that will keep time for the average person, this particular watch is a nice piece of jewelry/status symbol. if you need more accuracy then purchase the one you need and make sure that it is made to the specs you want. but don't complain about something that there is nothing wrong with----because you were an uninformed buyer

The Seamaster automatic models have received a Chronometer certificate from COSC. This certifies that the movement measured within -4 to +6 seconds of variation per day. Like most fine watch makers, OMEGA does not bother to certify their quartz models.

Overall, since many of us have to reset our watches twice a year to comply with daylight saving time or other local time changes, if your watch stays within 1 minute of correct time between those changes, you should have a watch that is more than sufficiently accurate for normal use


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Redrum said:


> I'm probably wrong here, but i think Breitling has a deal with ETA, so only they can use the thermocompensated movements (they call them superquartz)...


You are right in that you were probably wrong.;-) Take example the Sinn UX that has the same thermocompensated ETA inside as the SuperQuartz Breitling Colt has.


----------



## Redrum (Sep 17, 2008)

Thanks for the correction!
I forgot about the Sinn, Krieger came to mind, but i'm not sure about them.
So anyway, shame on Omega for not having TC quartz modules on their Semaster line.

Cheers dudes - dudettes

RR


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Well, apart from anything else, apart from the TC module, it is basically the same movement without the extra complication. Now, I will accept that the 9f, E510 and A690/A660 are better movements but I'm not terribly convinced that any of the Swiss (and that means ETA at the moment) movements are better movements than the 1530, apart from the TC module. If the argument is that any movement without TC is a 'mall movement' then we really have lost the ability to distinguish between the 98% of quartz which are dross and the 2% which are not.

ppaulusz, yes, you are absolutely right, and thanks for the welcome. That's the movement in the other recent TC Omega, the Seamaster 200, which preceded the SMP300 and demonstrated to Omega that no one would pay more for TC on a sports watch. However my point stands, as all three movements are all but identical once you remove the TC module. But yes, I need to get up to speed on obsessive detail again...


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

Redrum said:


> ...So anyway, shame on Omega for not having TC quartz modules on their Semaster line...


It is true if you meant the current _Seamaster_ line... because 20 years ago _Omega_ used to put thermocompensated (_ETA 255.561 = Omega Cal.1441_) movement in limited numbers into the quartz _Seamaster Professional 200M _models:


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

AAWATCHES said:


> 2.5 minutes a year is within the specs for a non cosc watch, if you want a chronometer, you should buy one, than if it is not correct you have a basis for a complaint... when one purchases this watch they are paying for a good quality brand name watch that will keep time for the average person, this particular watch is a nice piece of jewelry/status symbol. if you need more accuracy then purchase the one you need and make sure that it is made to the specs you want. but don't complain about something that there is nothing wrong with----because you were an uninformed buyer
> 
> The Seamaster automatic models have received a Chronometer certificate from COSC. This certifies that the movement measured within -4 to +6 seconds of variation per day. Like most fine watch makers, OMEGA does not bother to certify their quartz models.
> 
> Overall, since many of us have to reset our watches twice a year to comply with daylight saving time or other local time changes, if your watch stays within 1 minute of correct time between those changes, you should have a watch that is more than sufficiently accurate for normal use


A couple of points in response:

1. I'm not sure where the discussion of mechanical-watch accuracy and mechanical COSC standards comes in here. We're discussing a quartz watch and the fact that we are getting very pedestrian accuracy (quartz mall-watch accuracy) in a very expensive watch. Most members of this forum are far less interested in the jewelry quotient and far, far less interested in the status quotient of a watch than in its accuracy. I guess you are saying that the Omega Seamaster delivers mall-watch accuracy, but does so in a nicely-designed and -finished case with a prestigious logo on it--and that anyone who buys one should realize this and not expect exceptional accuracy. OK, up to a point, I guess, but I agree that, for that kind of money, Omega should spend the extra $20 (was it?) to make the performance equivalent to the appearance/cachet.

2. You miss the point of this forum and the values of the forumers by focusing on what is "sufficiently accurate for normal use." Sure, even a mechanical watch is sufficiently accurate for normal use for 99% of the population (particularly if it is running fast), but sufficient practical accuracy is not where it's at on this forum. The central value of HEQ forumers is _high_ accuracy, not because it's needed in our everyday lives, but because it has its own aesthetic--one that matters a lot to forumers. Given this value system, standard quartz accuracy is, for the most part, not "sufficiently accurate."


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

> It is true if you meant the current _Seamaster_ line... because 20 years ago _Omega_ used to put thermocompensated (_ETA 255.561 = Omega Cal.1441_) movement in limited numbers into the quartz _Seamaster Professional 200M _models:


Which sold about 5% of the numbers per year of the SMP 300; what lesson did Omega learn? The fact is that Seamaster is the sports watch line while Constellation is the accuracy and chronometer line. The 1538 is the more appropriate movement for a sports watch.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

M4tt said:


> ...ppaulusz, yes, you are absolutely right, and thanks for the welcome. That's the movement in the other recent TC Omega, the Seamaster 200, which preceded the SMP300 and demonstrated to Omega that no one would pay more for TC on a sports watch. However my point stands, as the two movements are all but identical.


M4tt, it's not your day!;-) How can you say that the two movements are identical when one has a thermocompensated electronic module and the other has just a standard electronic module?! Their share the same mechanical parts but that's all they share! The electronics are completely different. So you don't really have a point here...

One other thing: the quartz connoisseurs - like yours truly - did in fact pay for the TC in case of that particular sports watch.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

M4tt said:


> It is true if you meant the current _Seamaster_ line... because 20 years ago _Omega_ used to put thermocompensated (_ETA 255.561 = Omega Cal.1441_) movement in limited numbers into the quartz _Seamaster Professional 200M _models:
> 
> Which sold about 5% of the numbers per year of the SMP 300; what lesson did Omega learn?...QUOTE]
> 
> You must be kidding! That thermocompensated Omega Seamaster Professional 200M was a limited edition release!


----------



## shandy (Feb 13, 2008)

M4tt said:


> Well, apart from anything else, apart from the TC module, it is basically the same movement without the extra complication. Now, I will accept that the 9f, E510 and A690/A660 are better movements but I'm not terribly convinced that any of the Swiss (and that means ETA at the moment) movements are better movements than the 1530, apart from the TC module. If the argument is that any movement without TC is a 'mall movement' then we really have lost the ability to distinguish between the 98% of quartz which are dross and the 2% which are not.
> 
> ppaulusz, yes, you are absolutely right, and thanks for the welcome. That's the movement in the other recent TC Omega, the Seamaster 200, which preceded the SMP300 and demonstrated to Omega that no one would pay more for TC on a sports watch. However my point stands, as all three movements are all but identical once you remove the TC module. But yes, I need to get up to speed on obsessive detail again...


No, I am sorry, you are wrong! the 1680 (252.511) is not identical it has a perpetual calendar!
Can you explain which actual components are the same in the movements to make them all but identical, seems to me that with perpetual calendar and thermo they are very different beasts?

I am guessing here, but I reckon there is a whole lot more to making the 252.511 movement than plonking in the thermocompensating part!


----------



## shandy (Feb 13, 2008)

South Pender said:


> A couple of points in response:
> 
> 1. I'm not sure where the discussion of mechanical-watch accuracy and mechanical COSC standards comes in here. We're discussing a quartz watch and the fact that we are getting very pedestrian accuracy (quartz mall-watch accuracy) in a very expensive watch. Most members of this forum are far less interested in the jewelry quotient and far, far less interested in the status quotient of a watch than in its accuracy. I guess you are saying that the Omega Seamaster delivers mall-watch accuracy, but does so in a nicely-designed and -finished case with a prestigious logo on it--and that anyone who buys one should realize this and not expect exceptional accuracy. OK, up to a point, I guess, but I agree that, for that kind of money, Omega should spend the extra $20 (was it?) to make the performance equivalent to the appearance/cachet.
> 
> 2. You miss the point of this forum and the values of the forumers by focusing on what is "sufficiently accurate for normal use." Sure, even a mechanical watch is sufficiently accurate for normal use for 99% of the population (particularly if it is running fast), but sufficient practical accuracy is not where it's at on this forum. The central value of HEQ forumers is _high_ accuracy, not because it's needed in our everyday lives, but because it has its own aesthetic--one that matters a lot to forumers. Given this value system, standard quartz accuracy is, for the most part, not "sufficiently accurate."


I agree!


----------



## AAWATCHES (May 2, 2009)

ianmedium said:


> I agree!


First of all you need to read the entire paragraph before commenting. The last sentence says that the quartz watch is not certified and it goes on to say that this particular watch we are discussing is running within specs.
i agree with what you are saying in principal, however the point is that this particular watch is not broken. you can't fix what isn't broken. if you want a more accurate timepiece - buy the one that is designed to do what you want.


----------



## Cobalt (Jan 27, 2008)

I wonder where the OP is? Maybe his purpose was a hit-n-run to stir up a little controversy. But the end result has been quite a stimulating thread.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

> M4tt, it's not your day!;-) How can you say that the two movements are identical when one has a thermocompensated electronic module and the other has just a standard electronic module?! Their share the same mechanical parts but that's all they share! The electronics are completely different. So you don't really have a point here...


I suggest that you return to the post you quoted and read it again, then it would be nice if you corrected your quote so it actaully reads as the original text does. Once you do that you may want to correct your comment on that quote.

My point all along was that the two (three) movements are so mechanically similar that the idea that one is a 'mall watch' while the other (two) is (are) HEQ is ludicrous. I began with a nuanced position which made quite clear that I didn't consider the 1538 to be a HEQ but still considered it to be a worthy movement.

The fact is that I enjoy a wide range of watches for a wide range of reasons. HEQ is certainly part of the story certainly but, in the case of the SMP I actually use it as it was designed to be used:



















and frankly, I find the idea irritating that a watch that, while not HEQ, has taken everything I can throw at it for many years, would be described as a mall, or even a boutique watch.

I'm pretty sure you got the point that I was making.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

That's the second bizarre misunderstanding/misquote in two posts:

Did you not see the words: *'limited numbers'? *

just as you failed to notice (or quote) the words: '*once you remove the TC module*'.

You are absolutely right, it isn't my day!

Actually, my point is, as you said:



> > Their share the same mechanical parts but that's all they share!
> 
> 
> The electronics are completely different. So you don't really have a point here...


That was precisely my point, they share the same (high quality) mechanical parts. Not such a cheap watch!


----------



## JRP (Sep 28, 2006)

Let me join in the fray.

Maybe this will help.

I bought my SMP in 1998. The seconds hand was acting wierd so I sent to (at that time SMH Australia). While there, I requested them to check the accuracy and improve on it.

The swapped the movement in it. They informed me that for the SMP, the accuracy should be 0.1 sec per day- remember- this is not specified accuracy by ETA- but the Swatch group service center.

My 11 year old SMP - when worn is accurate to 1 second per month- when not worn- about 2 secs per month.

All the people I know who have quartz SMPs have reported similar accuracy figures. 

1 of my friends (lucky guy) who bought his standard Seamaster with the same movement has had consistent 2 secs/per year performance since 1996!

SO-according to my experience-whilst it being a "stock" ETA movement, it performs pretty well in the SMPs- dont know if Omega does something extra to it or not.

Just my 2 cents worth

regards
JRP


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

M4tt said:


> ...My point all along was that the two (three) movements are so mechanically similar that the idea that one is a 'mall watch' while the other (two) is (are) HEQ is ludicrous...


The quartz watch is an electronic device: the electronic components make the main difference!


----------



## inlanding (Feb 20, 2008)

I do have a cheap mall watch and it does not resemble the quartz movement in the 2264.50 whatsoever. Am I missing something?

Glen


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

M4tt said:


> ...I find the idea irritating that a watch that, while not HEQ, has taken everything I can throw at it for many years, would be described as a mall, or even a boutique watch...


I agree! I would not call the Omega Seamaster 300M a mall or even a boutique watch. We don't have an issue about that.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

M4tt said:


> ...'*once you remove the TC module*'...


Just to clarify it: 
There is no such thing as "TC module". There is a mechanical module and there is an electronic module. If a movement has thermocompensation then the TC is an integrated part of the electronic module.
At the early stage of my quartz learning I too thought that there would be an independent "TC module" that can be added to an electronic module to make the movement thermocompensated. 
Wrong!!! If the TC is there then it's integrated and not an independent module.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Right. I wasn't sure the first two times, but now I am:



> At the early stage of my quartz learning I too thought that there would be an independent "TC module"


As you noticed, I posted the ETA service manuals for the appropriate movements. More to the point you cannot be unaware that I work on my own watches and have a good working grasp of the technology in question. I own the movements being discussed here and I *know how they work*.

In a single thread you have misquoted me once and, I can only assume, _deliberately _misunderstood me twice. It's getting boring.

Anyway, as you said, you agree with the only point I was trying to make: it's a high quality movement. As for the case being 'man jewelery':










You can't do this with a mall watch!


----------



## fstshrk (Mar 29, 2007)

And this proves what?

A watch is made to be worn. I doubt you will survive being frozen inside an iceberg even when your watch may still be running 

Marathon SAR quartz watches can probably make the same claim and they are 1/5th the price of the SMP300.



M4tt said:


> Right. I wasn't sure the first two times, but now I am:
> 
> As you noticed, I posted the ETA service manuals for the appropriate movements. More to the point you cannot be unaware that I work on my own watches and have a good working grasp of the technology in question. I own the movements being discussed here and I *know how they work*.
> 
> ...


----------



## shandy (Feb 13, 2008)

To the quote below, no you did not! 
If you own a constellation double eagle perpetual calendar you will know that you did not post a manual for that movement! 
It does not have the perpetual calendar it is not the same serial number or anything close to it! If you are saying they are all the same movements bar the thermo and perpetual then that is like saying the quartz movement in your seamaster is like a quartz movement in a timex as it has more in common with the timex than the connie! it is not thermo, it is not perpetual, you have not actually given proof to back up your statement, just words that have no facts! Lets see the cold hard facts that the movment in your seamaster is actually almost identical to the thermo perpetual connie for that is what you keep saying!

Also, I have to say what on earth is the point that your seamaster can survive boiling and being frozen in a block of ice, it is a vacuous satement as it is meaningless as it bears no point to the use of a watch!



M4tt said:


> As you noticed, I posted the ETA service manuals for the appropriate movements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Hans Moleman (Sep 24, 2007)

> is good enough for celestial navigation, this guy can still get his sextant out and find his way to the mall./QUOTE]
> 
> Mmm.:think:
> Not too sure about that.
> ...


----------



## Eeeb (Jul 12, 2007)

Oh oh... irritating Matt... Oh, wait a minute. I wasn't going to post in this stupid thread. Ignore this...


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

M4tt said:


> ...
> Anyway, as you said, you agree with the only point I was trying to make: it's a high quality movement. As for the case being 'man jewelery':
> 
> (picture ow watch into ice)
> ...


Actually you can do that AND MORE with a 100$ mall watch:
http://www.gshock.com/content/toughness/resistance/


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

M4tt said:


> ...As you noticed, I posted the ETA service manuals for the appropriate movements. More to the point you cannot be unaware that I work on my own watches and have a good working grasp of the technology in question. I own the movements being discussed here and I *know how they work*.
> 
> In a single thread you have misquoted me once and, I can only assume, _deliberately _misunderstood me twice. It's getting boring...


- M4tt, we all noticed that you have posted the wrong service manuals and then tried to base your argument on them.
- We all noticed that you have serious problems with the interpretation of the service manuals and the technologies in general (see: 'TC module').
- I've never misqouted you.
- You are absolutely right: it's getting boring (and ridiculous as well, I might add).


----------



## robert11 (Jun 15, 2008)

traintime said:


> Disgusted with Omega,
> Traintime


When I see a allegedly high end quartz watch without a high end movement in it I feel quiet insulted by the manufacturer. With modern manufacturing techniques almost any manufacturer can produce a nice case and a dial. The addition and manufacturer of in house movements is what I expect then to do with at least some of the profit. 
<rant off>


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Ok one more time:

First, the mistake:

*1*) Yes, initially, writing from memory, and grabbing what I thought were the appropriate tech sheets, again from memory, I stated that the Perpetual Connie had a 255.551 rather than a 252.511. Note that I got precisely *one *digit wrong. Unfortunately, (for me) there is, in fact, a T/C 252.51 as well as a T/C 255.511 (which is so similar to the 255.561 as to share the same tech sheet) and so my error was reinforced when I pulled out the sheets.

Naturally this error was pointed out by you and I *immediately *concurred that I had made an error:



> ppaulusz, yes, you are absolutely right, and thanks for the welcome. That's the movement in the other recent TC Omega, the Seamaster 200,


So now there are three movements under discussion: Two 255.xxxs and a 252.xxx. I don't actually need the 252 to make my point, the 255 in the 1441 is _indeed _almost identical to the 1538 and is most certainly considered HEQ. *This *comparison carries the weight of argument I intended.

So to be *absolutely clear*:

_All that I was pointing out was that the 1538 is not a 'mall movement'._ 
here's the key argument again (*but corrected*).



> The 1441 is a tidied up ETA 255.561 (which is all but identical to a 255.511) It is indeed a thermocompensated multijewel movement that can be reasonably expected to last a lifetime with a little TLC.
> 
> The 1538, on the other hand, is a tidied up ETA 255.461. While it is not thermocompensated, it is a multijewel movement that can reasonably be expected to last a lifetime with a little TLC.


That was it, all I was noting was the similarity of two movements, one thermocompensated and one not. The implication was simply that both were robust quality movements.

*2*) The 255.511 is *not *all but identical (without the electronics module) to the 252.511. It *is *all but identical to the 255.461 (without the electronics module). As recompense for the error, here's a photo of my 252.511:








I hope it is utterly clear how this error was made.

Right, that's a lot of errata for an error of a single digit, which I agreed was incorrect almost immediately. Things seem to have got pretty _ferocious _here these days.

Second, _capitalisation _on my mistake.



> M4tt, we all noticed that you have posted the wrong service manuals and then tried to base your argument on them.


You pointed out my error, explained above. I agreed immediately. My argument remained *unchanged *with the substitution of the 255.511 for the 252.511. One is TC and thus HEQ, one is not and thus allegedly a mall watch. As you agreed:



> Their share the same mechanical parts but that's all they share! The electronics are completely different. So you don't really have a point here...


This has always been precisely my point: underneath the electronics modules you have a solid multijewel movement, not a jewel-less mall watch.



> We all noticed that you have serious problems with the interpretation of the service manuals and the technologies in general (see: 'TC module').


This is just downright insulting; you know full well, from hundreds of previous conversations which are here for all to see, not to mention a competition that you helped set, that I have a deep understanding of quartz watches. If I was a neophyte then you would be justified in assuming that I didn't know, but I'm not and so you know full well that this was merely shorthand for the electronics module and I was just distinguishing between a TC and a non TC module.



> I've never misqouted you.


I'd recheck posts 23, 24 and then 26 before saying that...



> You are absolutely right: it's getting boring (and ridiculous as well, I might add).


Now I'll be honest, I was a little surprised by the rudeness of ppaulusz' welcome and ongoing commentary:



> Oh lordy, you should have stayed in 'lurk mode'


and more so by Eeeb's :



> Oh oh... irritating Matt... Oh, wait a minute. I wasn't going to post in this stupid thread. Ignore this...


Last time I looked, I was a reasonably respected member of this forum who didn't get involved much any more. I'm not entirely sure what has changed in my absence (or even whether that explains my absence) but I remember a forum that was, while a bunch of mavens, polite to a fault, collegiate, interested and welcoming. It was _fun_.

Did I miss something?

BTW, the freezing and the boiling was partially just for fun but also, when I'm wearing a watch for sea kayaking, I want to know it can handle *anything*. I like the idea that it can handle stuff way beyond its spec. Yes, so can some mall watches apparently. As for TC and freezing and boiling, depending on the TC strategy I suspect you could get some really odd results at extreme temperatures. No one wants to find out the hard way...


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

In all the furore, I didn't reply to Catelin's rather good point:



> I believe that the entire point was NOT if ETA quartz movements are decent - you can buy with 100$ a quartz watch that can be expected to last a lifetime - the entire point was that Omega decided that customers paying close to 2000$ are not worth the extra 20$ to upgrade to a TC movement - and I have to subscribe to the opinion that such a policy might bring some extra money on the short term but will be highly destructive on the long term.


The assumption is that the market values TC very highly. All the evidence is that it doesn't. This situation is mirrored by that with the mechanical Cal.2500. It is common knowledge that it can be set up to be far far more stable and accurate than it is but Omega don't. COSC is good enough for the market right now. In the same way, Omega make TC available in the Connie for the small sector of the market who care but in most of their mainstream models they simply don't need to. It's just one more component set to go wrong.

Personally I *am *into HEQ, however I am utterly content with my SMP, ten seconds a month and all. High accuracy isn't its job. Reliability and robustness is. I have passed up several chances to reequip it with a HEQ movement and haven't bothered.

If they uprated the SMP then what would be the point of the Connie? By rationing out the thermocompensation Omega allow for product differentiation within their range. If evrything had TC then the COnnie really would just be a pretty case.

To conclude, there really are not that many quartz movements that are designed to be serviceable. I would argue that ETA make the best of them. What is the cheapest watch you can find a 1538 in?


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

M4tt said:


> ...Did I miss something?...


You have certainly missed or rather misinterpreted my _tongue-in-cheek_ "welcome" in post #16 of this thread that should be read with the included quote. 
However I do admit that if a joke needs explanation then it can mean one of the two:
- Either it's a bad joke or a joke in bad taste.:rodekaart
- Or the recipient failed to comprehend it.o|

If the moderators think it was a joke in bad taste then they should remove it, in my opinion.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

If I have misinterpreted it, then I apologise. The standard etiquette with a joke, especially one that could be misinterpreted, is to add a smiley.

Am I to take it then that all the points at which you imply, or simply state, that I am clueless are also tongue in cheek rather than mere ad hominem?


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

M4tt said:


> If I have misinterpreted it, then I apologise. The standard etiquette with a joke, especially one that could be misinterpreted, is to add a smiley.
> 
> Am I to take it then that all the points at which you imply, or simply state, that I am clueless are also tongue in cheek rather than mere ad hominem?


M4tt, there is really no need for apology. I'm sure I can exchange some light-hearted thoughts with a fellow member who lives in the country of the Monty Pytons.;-)

Let's move on: M4tt, have you ever thought about replacing the electronic module of your SMP 300M with a (matching) thermocompensated one - just to give your watch a bit of tuning for accuracy-sake? Our fellow member Vizi did the modification for his SMP 300M and he is happy with the outcome.


----------



## Tragic (Feb 11, 2006)

I kind of agree with Eeeb here.
It's amazing how a drive-by, 8 post wonder, can spark such a bruhaha!


----------



## shandy (Feb 13, 2008)

M4tt said:


> Now I'll be honest, I was a little surprised by the rudeness of ppaulusz' welcome and ongoing commentary.
> 
> I am sorry but your responses have been of the sort that it seems you think you are talking to a bunch of idiots and having to suffer our ignorance when it is in fact you that is not clearly explaining your argument, not sufficently backing it up and quite frankly making a great amount of mistakes in your conjecture!
> 
> ...


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

No problem PPaulusz, I think letting it drop is just fine. Eeeb, thanks for the PM, yes, in that case I did misinterpret your meaning. I read it as my being irritating, not as it being unwise to irritate me. I must be being over-sensitive today!

I'll just do a quick response to the other chap and leave it at that.


----------



## shandy (Feb 13, 2008)

M4tt said:


> I must be being over-sensitive today!
> 
> I'll just do a quick response to the other chap and leave it at that.


Maybe I am being a bit oversensitive as well, sorry if I wrote anything that is hurtfull!


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

M4tt said:


> In all the furore, I didn't reply to Catelin's rather good point:
> 
> The assumption is that the market values TC very highly. All the evidence is that it doesn't. This situation is mirrored by that with the mechanical Cal.2500. It is common knowledge that it can be set up to be far far more stable and accurate than it is but Omega don't. COSC is good enough for the market right now. In the same way, Omega make TC available in the Connie for the small sector of the market who care but in most of their mainstream models they simply don't need to. It's just one more component set to go wrong.
> 
> ...


I agree that 'seconds per year' accuracy is not that big a deal to 90% of customers. But it is not the whole story !

Omega ask me to pay $2000 dollars for the watch.
If they spent another $20 on the product
>> 10 year battery-life instead of 2-3 years
>> Perpetual calendar
>> Time-zone adjust by indexing the hours hand
>> No detriment to reliability
as well as 10 seconds per year accuracy with thermo-compensation.

I believe that at least one of these features would be highly valued by 95% of customers.
I bought end-of-line Longines VHP from authorized retailer, and the salesman had no idea what its selling points were
My opinion is that Swatch basically want to project quartz as 'mall watches' because they can make more money (and retain market-place leadership) with mechanical watches.
95% of the customers accept rubbish (like watches with silly little 2 year batteries and useless date displays) because nobody has told them that they can have something much better for hardly any more money.

Put it this way, you are buying a watch for $2000, but for another $200
(ten times mark-up) you can have
10 year battery
Perpetual calendar
Time zone adjust
20s per year accuracy
With a bit of good salesmanship I maintain that 95% of customers would part with the extra $200.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

M4tt said:


> If they uprated the SMP then what would be the point of the Connie? By rationing out the thermocompensation Omega allow for product differentiation within their range. If evrything had TC then the COnnie really would just be a pretty case.


This point doesn't seem correct to me. The SMP and Constellation represent two quite different watch concepts--the one being what might be considered a "special-purpose," sporty watch (almost a tool watch)--whether the wearer engages in marine activities, or, more likely, not--and the other an all-out dress watch. Thus Omega buyers are not going to make their choice, I believe, between the SMP and Connie on which has TC, but rather on aesthetics and desired image. If true, this would suggest that Omega might gain by offering each of these in both TC and non-TC versions for both those for whom TC is important and those for whom it isn't--with the non-TC models priced a little lower.


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

M4tt said:


> In all the furore, I didn't reply to Catelin's rather good point:
> ...
> The assumption is that the market values TC very highly. All the evidence is that it doesn't.
> ...


Well, one evidence that people DO value better calibers is the fact that EVERY single person that is educated about the accuracy of ordinary quartz modules vs TC modules and then finds out that they are paying close to 2000$ for what is basically an average timekeeping product are INFURIATED (see the topmost post that started this thread ;-) )

The reason why people still pay a premium on mass-produced 'famous names' watches is a result of brand recognition that dates back far more than 20-30 years - however if some part of the companies keep diluting the value they are providing (as they constantly did during the last 10-20 years) at some point enough of the more competent (and marketing-averse) customers will decide to avoid a brand that is 99% based on marketing and maybe 1% on actual technological value and select something else (assuming that not all watch companies will simply focus on robbing the buyer).


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

> am sorry but your responses have been of the sort that it seems you think you are talking to a bunch of idiots and having to suffer our ignorance when it is in fact you that is not clearly explaining your argument, not sufficently backing it up and quite frankly making a great amount of mistakes in your conjecture!


Could you please point out the phrases that demonstrate that I consider anyone but the OP to be an ignorant idiot? I know this forum well and I am acutely aware that it is the most informed and intelligent forum on the net.
The idea that I would feel or act in that way here is risible.

As a *conjecture *is, according to the great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, (who coined the word) a proposition which has not been falsified and is thus assumed to be true, I take it that you agree with my argument.

My central argument was painfully simple: the mechanics of the two movements are close to identical and thus if one is then both are quality movements. One is TC one is not. I placed the wrong movement in one watch by making a one digit error and didn't notice. It was irrelevent as the movement in question was still aHEQ TC movement allowing my argument to remain valid.

Ppaulsz pointed this out almost immediately. I agreed I was in error. The end.



> Yes, if you read your posts you would see they are antagonising and demeaning to the reader and seem to be coming from the same point of view as the OP, trying to take the rise!


Again, can you quote the points at which I am antagonising and demeaning to the reader? More to the point, I am frankly flabbergasted that anyone could think that I was coming from the same point of view as the OP. Can you again cut and paste the parts that gave you that idea.



> You still not have said if you have tested "Mall watches" (BTW, there are two stores within malls that sell Omegas in my town!) to the extremes you have tested your seamaster, again, you are not backing up your argument and with the evidence you have given us is it not suprising we do not trust what you are saying as what you have said is full of holes!


I take the term 'Mall Watch' to be a synonym of 'fashion watch' and denote the sort of cheap nasty, no name, no jewel watches found in malls. This doesn't include named watches such as say Seiko or Omega.
Nope I don't think that they would all survive boiling and freezing. However, that's my conjecture. You are, apparently, the falsificationist - go falsify my hypothesis.

However, this was irrelevant to my argument, I just happened to have frozen and boiled my SMP and posted over on the Omega forum. I just posted them here as they are amusing. They were not central to my argument at all. I'm sure some fashion watches would survive and others would not. The SMP however would. Personally I wouldn't boil a lot of TC watches as I am not sure about damaging the thermistor. Once again, you want to falsify my conjecture, get boiling.



> You have in your last post cleared up at long last the error on movement, you still not have substantiated your statement that a "Mall" watch cannot withstand the same tests the Omega can!


No, I cleared up the error as soon as PP pointed it out. Post 23 to be precise. In your post 25 you actually quote my post 23 in which I agree with PP that I'd screwed up and state absolutely clearly that it is the SM200 movement:



> ppaulusz, yes, you are absolutely right, and thanks for the welcome. That's the movement in the other recent TC Omega, the Seamaster 200, which preceded the SMP300 and demonstrated to Omega that no one would pay more for TC on a sports watch. However my point stands, as all three movements are all but identical once you remove the TC module.


You quoted this and then you said:



> No, I am sorry, you are wrong! the 1680 (252.511) is not identical it has a perpetual calendar! Can you explain which actual components are the same in the movements to make them all but identical, seems to me that with perpetual calendar and thermo they are very different beasts?


In other words, _You simply didn't read what I had written._ No wonder my argument looks full of holes!



> I agree, the Omega is more than just a cheap watch(for reasons given above the nomenclature of Mall watch is innapropriate!) but then it bloody well should be considering it costs $1950 more than a $50 watch! $1950 is a lot to spend on something that can better something else in two totally irrelevant tests! Remember your seamaster, unlike the connie is totally normal and exactly the same as a cheap quartz watch when it comes to timekeeping, what you are saying is that because it has the ETA movement it is better than a cheap watch without..Why??


Well, firstly find me a cheap watch with the 1538, then sapphire, then 300m water resistance, screw down crown, magnetic resistance and so on and so on. All I was saying was that TC wasn't the sole definition of a good watch.



> I have friend who has a no name market stall quartz watch that she has worn since she got it 25 years ago. she puts a battery in every 3 years and it is still going strong and it's seconds hand hits the marker bang on! if this is representative of poor quality Mall watches then I think it is doing well, oh yes, it keeps great time as well ( though it probably would fall apart if she boiled it or froze it in a block of ice, but then she would not do something like that, silly! She just wears it for it's intended purpose!)


Let me get clear, you are saying that I



> seem to be coming from the same point of view as the OP


and then you come out with this. What precisely are you trying to demonstrate here - that market watches are as good as the SMP?



> You have created the comments you have gotten but then project the errors as being ours:-s


No, PP and I had a spat. I made a simple mistake and he rode me about it. I got annoyed. We made peace.

Now this could go on, but, as is my habit, that irritates me enormously, I have got involved with a Troll.

I suggest we let this go.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

You were the other chap. Shall I just delete what I said?


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Eeeb said:


> Oh oh... irritating Matt... Oh, wait a minute. I wasn't going to post in this stupid thread. Ignore this...


This doesn't strike me as helpful, nor is it what we might expect from an objective moderator. Describing a thread as "stupid" because one _suspects_ that it was begun by a troll or for the purpose of generating more heat than light is a pretty suboptimal way of helping to generate constructive and informative discussion. Why not recast the opening post a little (and it would have been so easy with this topic) so as to present forumers with an opportunity to learn something?

In the present case, the OP could easily have been finessed into an objective discussion of just what distinguishes a "mall watch" capable of keeping typical quartz-accuracy time (± 15 sec./month) from a higher-end watch like an Omega with an ETA movement that does no better accuracy-wise, but is superior in other ways. In other words, what is it about this movement and the watch around it that at least partly justifies the greatly-different price? I tried to get at this by asking M4tt just what made the SMP with the ETA 1538 movement superior to a mall watch, fully expecting a reasoned response--containing things like ruggedness (with, perhaps some pictures of the inside of the watch), reliability, magnetic resistance, etc., things that, I guess, M4tt was hinting at with the boiling/block of ice demonstration. 

I still have these questions, and very much regret that the thread wasn't "moderated" along these lines. An opportunity wasted by a "shoot from the hip" mentality.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Actually, on reflection, I agree with you on this. I have argued elsewhere that this is precisely what they should do with the coaxial 2500 - offer carefully poised and regulated versions and straight out of the machine versions.

I'd say Omega have, more than any other Swiss brand, made a commitment to advancing horology. From the F2400 to the F720 to the 2500 Omega have made a name for developing cutting edge technology.

I'm not sure that *every *person is. I'm not for a start. I love my SMP just as it is. I have had plenty of chances to uprate it but haven't bothered.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Actually, Eeeb was attempting to do precisely that. I misunderstood him and got into a huff. Eeeb was pointing out that, when irritated, I tend to write a lot and was hinting that I shouldn't waste my time on a troll. He was absolutely correct and, knowing how I can get over involved, doing his job extremely well. I just misunderstood - until he explained.

Matt is on holiday at the moment, at a loose end, and has been having all sorts of fun boiling his watch and so on. Compared to my last holiday when I took a newly built home brew watch into a tomb full of bats (yes, there are photos) in some mad 'road testing' exercise this is small beer.

If you wanted a photo of the boiled, frozen and generally abused movement, you should have just asked:










It's just a nice solid movement. I prefer it to the prettier 8J for example (I broke it):









While the 1538 is simple it is easy to look after and just keeps going. Once it has been wrapped in a case so solid that it can resist 300m pressure and covered in a Sapphire crystal that can do the same with added protection from screw down everything I think that you have a winning combination. The fact that it is an ergonomic dream and looks pretty tasty helps too.

Much more to the point. I abuse watches horribly and I haven't broken it.

Anyway, a rubberised mall watch might be able to handle freezing and boiling but can it cope with immersion in melted chocolate sauce and peppering with nuts?









Thought not.

(THIS IS A JOKE.)


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

^^Thanks, Matt! Boy, you really _are_ at loose ends....:-d


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Nah, I did the chocolate one a year or two back when Eptaz over at Omega said he would prefer it in choc and nut. Silly really. 

Most of yesterday was spent reinstalling vista as it has been knackered for months. I was using my netbook while hanging around loading the billion meg of patches it has already developed. It's amazing how a little inattention can lead to so much trouble!


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

M4tt said:


> In all the furore, I didn't reply to Catelin's rather good point:
> 
> The assumption is that the market values TC very highly. All the evidence is that it doesn't.


All the evidence is that the market values are founded more on marketing bull sh-1-t than any objective evaluation of product quality.

Take the Rolex watch
The owner cannot see what sort of 'engine' lives behind the screw-on back.
The marketing bull sh-1-tters say that it is a superlative chronometer, but it is not (even by John Harrisons standards nearly 300 years ago),and it needs a hugely expensive service every few years. But the company that makes it designed a much better, cheaper engine (oyster-quartz mark 2) a couple of decades ago, and then trashed it.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Actually, before you get to the marketing BS, the fact is that Rolex made their name with absolutely rock solid movements that combined excellent accuracy, stability and reliability in a case which while over fifty years old can still appear absolutly contemporary. I was dismissive too until I bought one. They transcend the nonsense spouted about them. (and I liked the cases so much I started using them for my homebrews!)

The comparison with Harrison is an odd one. Harrison made clocks, not watches. The idea of a 34mm watch capable of COSC type stability would have been pretty well unthinkable to him. 

Do you have all of the details of the OQ MKII? I'd be fascinated to see them. If they have come out I must have missed them.


----------



## traintime (Nov 18, 2008)

DaveM said:


> I agree that 'seconds per year' accuracy is not that big a deal to 90% of customers. But it is not the whole story !
> 
> Omega ask me to pay $2000 dollars for the watch.
> If they spent another $20 on the product
> ...


Very well said Dave M
Thank You,
Traintime


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

M4tt said:


> Nah, I did the chocolate one a year or two back when Eptaz over at Omega said he would prefer it in choc and nut. Silly really.
> 
> Most of yesterday was spent reinstalling vista as it has been knackered for months. I was using my netbook while hanging around loading the billion meg of patches it has already developed. It's amazing how a little inattention can lead to so much trouble!


Matt, now that you are at loose ends, could I ask you a question that I've had for a while (since the last great Spring Drive Smackdown): You mentioned in passing in that thread that, if you had only one HEQ, it would be a GS 9F. I'd really be interested in knowing why you'd go with that movement over one of the TC ETA movements and the Citizen A660 or E510 movements. I know, I know, this is really OT, but, mods, please let it go.... ;-)


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

M4tt said:


> Actually, before you get to the marketing BS, the fact is that Rolex made their name with absolutely rock solid movements that combined excellent accuracy, stability and reliability in a case which while over fifty years old can still appear absolutly contemporary. I was dismissive too until I bought one. They transcend the nonsense spouted about them. (and I liked the cases so much I started using them for my homebrews!)
> 
> The comparison with Harrison is an odd one. Harrison made clocks, not watches. The idea of a 34mm watch capable of COSC type stability would have been pretty well unthinkable to him.
> 
> Do you have all of the details of the OQ MKII? I'd be fascinated to see them. If they have come out I must have missed them.


I think that you miss my point.
I am not saying that the Rolex watch case is not wonderful, but how can you tell that it has a mechanical rather than a quartz movement inside it ?
a) much worse accuracy
b) higher repair cost

My understanding is that Rolex movements are not that well finished, but are very reliable and robust. The oyster-quartz was very good for its time, so I assume that the Mark II was even better.

Do you really call 5 seconds a day excellent accuracy in the 21st century ?

Harrisons prize-winner was a (be it rather large) pocket-watch. I think Harrison was a smart guy, and with the design and manufacturing tools available today he would have tried to design a mechanical watch more accurate than a Walmart quartz (or bought a quartz watch from Citizen and spent his time designing micro-machines).

I can understand a watch-fan buying a Lange and Sohnne watch with a transparent back, but why put a mechanical movement in a Rolex ?


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

In this case it would be a welcome diversion! To my way of looking at it, wehn quartz first came out, while the Japenese capitalised on it I felt that the Swiss got more obsessed and produced the more interesting movements (to start with). Nowadays however, I think the Swiss are extremely focused on mechanical again while the Japanese are producing the more interesting Quartz.

I love the E510 but it's not much to look at. The 690/660 are lovely movements but, for me the 9F trumps them. The fifty year service cycle is good, the accuracy can be every bit as good and the movement just looks sexy. It's a _proper_ movment, combining modern technology with a really meaty style. I suspect the longevity angle tempts. I find 'deep time' as exciting as I find accuracy.

Mind you, I was in the unenviable position of having to choose between a 9f GS and a Rolex Air King six months ago or so. I chose the Rolex... (just) I don't regret the choice, I just regret not quite being able to get both at once without creasing my beloved's brow.

I was so impressed with the Rolex case, I built my own Rolex (with an Omega movement)!

Anyway, my favourite ETA movement is probably the Autoquartz (just don't tell Eeeb)


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Because the idea of a clockwork mechanism is a central theme in the modern European mind. To own mechanism was to be a player up until comparatively recently. The ideas of Newton and Laplace may well be redundant now but the hum of these ideas still resonate in the modern mind. To own private time, a private universe, these ideas are still current even if many don't know why. So, yes a mechanism is the thing, ticking like the heavens.

*ahem*

Actually, as I remember the Rolex quartz was based on the 3035 movement. Based on the trends in Swiss quartz I don't see many grounds for optimism about the eventual MKII Oysterquartz. Yes, quartz is currently more stable and often more accurate. However, have you seen some of the results from the Coaxial escapement? 

There is a place for both, personally I think that Rolex make some of the prettiest movements around and finish the early ones to a fabulous standard. However, my favourite movement remains the 2500.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

DaveM said:


> My understanding is that Rolex movements are not that well finished, but are very reliable and robust. The oyster-quartz was very good for its time, so I assume that the Mark II was been even better.


The Rolex Oysterquartz movement was the 5035/55, and was an early thermocompensated movement made, I believe, in-house by Rolex. The difference between Mk. I and II is that the latter used a tuning-fork shaped quartz oscillator. Accuracy was good for the time, but pedestrian by today's standards--something on the order of 40 sec./year on average, I seem to recall. Rolex put some development into a second-generation TC quartz movement (was it the 5535?) that would have brought it into competitive specs, but for some reason, completely dropped the ball, and no watches with the new movement were ever seen. It has been speculated that Rolex didn't want to have to guarantee COSC quartz specs (about 26 sec./year), although they would, I assume, have wanted to put something like "superlative chronometre" on the dial.



DaveM said:


> I can understand a watch-fan buying a Lange and Sohnne watch with a transparent back, but why put a mechanical movement in a Rolex ?


Pretty much the whole appeal of a Rolex for all but a very few watch aficionados is its status-conferring qualities. Mechanical watches have far higher status among 99% of the population than quartz watches.


----------



## shandy (Feb 13, 2008)

I was going to write something but to be honest it is not worth my time or effort to argue the point with a perosn who does not listen so..

Ok M4TT you are right and I am all wrong..there happy now, I hope your ego is sufficently massaged!

Oh yes, do one last thing, put me on your ignore list as I have just done that with you !


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

M4tt said:


> In this case it would be a welcome diversion! To my way of looking at it, wehn quartz first came out, while the Japenese capitalised on it I felt that the Swiss got more obsessed and produced the more interesting movements (to start with). Nowadays however, I think the Swiss are extremely focused on mechanical again while the Japanese are producing the more interesting Quartz.
> 
> I love the E510 but it's not much to look at. The 690/660 are lovely movements but, for me the 9F trumps them. The fifty year service cycle is good, the accuracy can be every bit as good and the movement just looks sexy. It's a _proper_ movment, combining modern technology with a really meaty style. I suspect the longevity angle tempts. I find 'deep time' as exciting as I find accuracy.


This all makes sense to me. And one feature that would appeal to you--as one of a very small number of HEQ fans comfortable rummaging around inside a watch--is the adjustability potential, something not found on the Citizen entries at least. Ppaulusz has emphasized this frequently, and to someone like him and you, who can confidently remove the back of a watch and work on the movement, this adjustment capability is important. For me, however--cowardly in the extreme wrt this kind of tinkering--the Citizen A660 offers a higher likelihood of getting inside the ± 5 sec./year zone; at least it has seemed this way to me since learning that Seiko will not adjust a 9F unless it is outside the ± 10 sec./year range. Still, the "deep time" quality of the 9F appeals to me too. It does seem to come close to guaranteeing that the IC won't burn out in 20-25 years.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

> OK Ok M4TT you are right and we are all wrong..there happy now!


Ianmedium, I really don't know what your idea of me is, or where it came from, but you might want to consider that it may just be wrong.



> The Rolex Oysterquartz movement was the 5035/55, and was an early thermocompensated movement made, I believe, in-house by Rolex. The difference between Mk. I and II is that the latter used a tuning-fork shaped quartz oscillator. Accuracy was good for the time, but pedestrian by today's standards--something on the order of 40 sec./year on average, I seem to recall. Rolex put some development into a second-generation TC quartz movement (was it the 5535?) that would have brought it into competitive specs, but for some reason, completely dropped the ball, and no watches with the new movement were ever seen. It has been speculated that Rolex didn't want to have to guarantee COSC quartz specs (about 26 sec./year), although they would, I assume, have wanted to put something like "superlative chronometre" on the dial.


I think that DaveM was actually talking about a completely new quartz movement that Rolex are rumoured to have almost brought out after they ceased production of the 5055. The earlier movement, the 'Quartz Date' was related to the Beta 21 that Rolex were part of the design group (CEH) for. It was dead by '72.

There are not many details for the third generation movement. I would be interested if anyone know anything.



> Pretty much the whole appeal of a Rolex for all but a very few watch aficionados is its status-conferring qualities. Mechanical watches have far higher status among 99% of the population than quartz watches.


I agree entirely, but that still doesn't mean that they are not damn fine movements and cases. (it just means that they are rather overpriced damn fine movements and cases!) It also doens't undeermine the fact that many WIS love them for their mechanical and aesthetic qualities.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

I don't know, I think that over the years it's the E510 that seems to have the most people astonished by out and out accuracy. Mine was spot on for about a year and then crashed. It's been spot on since it recovered too but with a little less trust...


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

M4tt said:


> I think that DaveM was actually talking about a completely new quartz movement that Rolex are rumoured to have almost brought out after they ceased production of the 5055. The earlier movement, the 'Quartz Date' was related to the Beta 21 that Rolex were part of the design group (CEH) for. It was dead by '72.
> 
> There are not many details for the third generation movement. I would be interested if anyone know anything. .


I had the number wrong; it was the 5335 (date) and 5355 (day/date). Here's a little about these movements--evidently having 23 jewels and first shown in 2004:

http://www.oysterquartz.net/the_oysterquartz_pc.htm



M4tt said:


> I agree entirely, but that still doesn't mean that they are not damn fine movements and cases. (it just means that they are rather overpriced damn fine movements and cases!) It also doens't undeermine the fact that many WIS love them for their mechanical and aesthetic qualities.


Very true. My point was merely to offer an explanation for why Rolex doesn't make quartz watches (any more). Evidently, during the Oysterquartz's lifespan, its sales comprised only 2% of overall Rolex watch sales.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Yup, that's about it. Anyone know anything else?



> I had the number wrong; it was the 5335


Believe me, I know how you feel!


----------



## Catalin (Jan 2, 2009)

M4tt said:


> Actually, before you get to the marketing BS, the fact is that Rolex made their name with absolutely rock solid movements that combined excellent accuracy, stability and reliability in a case which while over fifty years old can still appear absolutly contemporary.
> ...


Somehow true but managing to miss the really important points:

- Rolex indeed made their name mostly in the '50s and '60s when they did have a few technological advantages (automated mass-production plus very good large calibers with overcoil) which they sold at that moment at a vastly better price point if we consider the prices of those years and the lack of any better alternative in the same range - the only more accurate mass-produced watch during the second half of the '60s was the Accutron which however needed a new battery each year and a level of service maybe even higher than an automatic;

- during the first half of the '70s a classic Rolex was still an acceptable technological product - you were paying in the same range or slightly LESS for an automatic than for the first generation quartz which at that point (just like tuning-forks a few years before) were more accurate yet still unproven on the LONG term;

- during the '80s however it became clear that quartz models were far superior in EVERY technological aspect (and that was mostly what almost killed the Swiss industry); as a result they decided that MEASURABLE TECHNOLOGY was a forever lost battle and instead the focus was moved on MARKETING and selling stuff based on their existing 'brand name' from the past - as a result a huge amount of failed companies were revived only for their name; it was also possible to sell products based on rather dubious quality like http://www.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium0036 ...

- the marketing (and lack of engineering education) is still what sells those brands right now (and OVER 80% of the average buyers DO NOT KNOW THAT AN AUTOMATIC IS FAR LESS ACCURATE EVEN THAN A 'MALL QUARTZ') - however it is already visible that in time the "sell to the stupid and make them believe they bought something special" is a non-sustainable tactic - so why not spend the extra 1% on a 2000$ watch and sell something which indeed can make that watch something clearly superior ??? (but without actually advertising that in any major way - since any recognition of MEASURABLE TECHNOLOGY might indeed destroy again the Swiss watch industry).


----------



## DaveM (Aug 9, 2008)

South Pender said:


> I had the number wrong; it was the 5335 (date) and 5355 (day/date). Here's a little about these movements--evidently having 23 jewels and first shown in 2004:
> 
> http://www.oysterquartz.net/the_oysterquartz_pc.htm
> Evidently, during the Oysterquartz's lifespan, its sales comprised only 2% of overall Rolex watch sales.


But does that mean that the average Rolex customer is really that concerned about the movement type ?
I would suggest that most customers are influenced by the physical and aesthetic quality of the case and dial, and by the snob-value of the name on the dial.

If Rolex had provided a greater choice of Oysterquartz case styles and it had been enthusiastically marketed as the 'option for the up and coming progressively minded executive' would it still have only been 2% of watch sales ?

I have just read Catalins post and he has said it all much better than I can


----------



## AAWATCHES (May 2, 2009)

DaveM said:


> But does that mean that the average Rolex customer is really that concerned about the movement type ?
> I would suggest that most customers are influenced by the physical and aesthetic quality of the case and dial, and by the snob-value of the name on the dial.
> 
> If Rolex had provided a greater choice of Oysterquartz case styles and it had been enthusiastically marketed as the 'option for the up and coming progressively minded executive' would it still have only been 2% of watch sales ?
> ...


You are right this conversation doesn't belong here, but since you bring it up, i don't think i am a snob and a lot of Rolex wearers would take offense to your statements. As a matter of fact i am wearing quartz watch now. i have owned my Rolex for 25 plus years and it keeps time perfectly. i recently bought my wife a Rolex that was manufactured in about 1910 and it runs perfectly. they are damn fine watches period


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Catalin said:


> ...however it is already visible that in time the "sell to the stupid and make them believe they bought something special" is a non-sustainable tactic - so why not spend the extra 1% on a 2000$ watch and sell something which indeed can make that watch something clearly superior ??? (but without actually advertising that in any major way - since any recognition of MEASURABLE TECHNOLOGY might indeed destroy again the Swiss watch industry).


Can we be sure of this? I think it would have to be acknowledged that Rolex did attempt, with the 5035/55 movements, to produce a technologically advanced quartz movement in 1977, and, for its time, it was definitely HEQ. Further, they were poised to bring out a different, and presumably much-improved, movement (5335/55) in the early 2000s. The fact that they didn't is undoubtedly an example of the supremacy of the company's marketing department. Second, your claim that recognition of measurable technology might once again destroy the Swiss watch industry would seem to ignore the HEQ ETA movements found in the Omega Double-Eagle Constellation, (earlier) in the Longines VHP models, the Breitlings, and one or two others. I believe that the reason enhanced accuracy is not stressed, is not because it would show that the emperor has no clothes, but rather because almost nobody would be impressed by it, and sales/the bottom line is what matters. Finally, your speculation that the general watch-buying public is wising up to market manipulation is something we might hope for, but not in any evidence that I've seen. In fact, it may well be a "sustainable tactic" from what I've observed. We are, after all, seeing fewer, not more, HEQ watches coming out of Switzerland these days, and it would appear that the Swiss marketers have succeeded in bringing the watch-buying public back into the mechanical fold--a vastly more-profitable domain than quartz.


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

AAWATCHES said:


> You are right this conversation doesn't belong here, but since you bring it up, i don't think i am a snob and a lot of Rolex wearers would take offense to your statements. As a matter of fact i am wearing quartz watch now. i have owned my Rolex for 25 plus years and it keeps time perfectly. i recently bought my wife a Rolex that was manufactured in about 1910 and it runs perfectly. they are damn fine watches period


Since any discussion of Rolex in this thread has been almost entirely centered around the Oysterquartz model (with thermocompensated movement), it certainly does belong on this forum. But broadening the discussion to the Rolex mystique, it would appear from everything that has appeared here (and elsewhere) that the Rolex is a well-made (except for some exceptions such as that flagged by Catalin) watch that sits in about the middle range of mechanical watches vis-à-vis accuracy, reliability, ruggedness, and aesthetics, but is priced higher than its purely design/mechanical properties would warrant. The price difference is for the cachet factor--the thing that sells Rolex to 95% of its buyers.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

It's funny, the amount of times I have found myself defending quartz from the 'soulless quartz' brigade...

Well, to be honest, I have wasted most of my day on arguments here and so I'm not going to be drawn into this one.

I simply disagree with your analysis. I find it hard to imagine the 80% statistic. Where is that from by the way? it seems an odd bit of quantitative study to do and I am aware that 76.54% of internet statistics are made up on an ad hoc basis. Your statements concerning The 'Swiss Survival Strategy' implies inside knowledge of their business strategy. I assume this is also well evidenced? Are you going to share your sources?

I think you are forgetting that, in the seventies, there was a massive recession in the west but not in Japan, that the Japanese companies made a wide range of models as well as quartz and that the Swiss made plenty of quartz themselves.










The vast majority of people on this forum and other forums understand their watches well. They are, almost by definition the informed consumers. Why do you think that so many savvy people like mechanical watches? Are they all stupid and simply falling for the advertising?

I understand how quartz watches work. I understand how tuning forks work and I understand how Mechanicals work. I love them all for different reasons. Most of the WIS I respect feel the same way.

Whether it's a Tuning fork and the knowledge that on my wrist a little bit of unique technology is going absolutley mental:










or a little less mental










I like Rolex movements:










and handbuilt frankens combining the best of two manufactures while irritating the fundamentalists:



















classic chronometers from the days when men were groovy and watches were, well, ugly










Or state of the art watches that push mechanical timekeeping forward a step. ( I get quite _defensive _about these)










I enjoy HEQ too, from the sublime, to the ridiculous.










Yes, this is without doubt an HEQ - Eeeb and I agree about _three_ things this is one of them!










I like to have a reference that I can trust too.

I hope you get the general picture here...

but my favourite watch of all, the one I love the most:










Is a '69 manual Smiths W10 with its calm unhurried tick.

That's why it's my avatar.

However, I'm sure you are right, quartz are technologically superior...

Just like paintshop!


----------



## AAWATCHES (May 2, 2009)

*M4tt -"The vast majority of people on this forum and other forums understand their watches well. They are, almost by definition the informed consumers. Why do you think that so many savvy people like mechanical watches? Are they all stupid and simply falling for the advertising?*

*I understand how quartz watches work. I understand how tuning forks work and I understand how Mechanicals work. I love them all for different reasons. Most of the WIS I respect feel the same way. "*

M4tt... When I grow up I want to be just like you


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Interesting analysis and particularly interesting last watch shown (the Smith's). What is it about that watch that makes it your favorite (please don't say because it's made in England :-d)? It looks very functional--with an easy-to-read dial and lume--and certainly passes the aesthetics test for me with the gracefully-contoured lugs and case. (Hate the strap, though.) What else can you tell us about it?


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

The assumption that I have grown up is one my beloved would _snort _at!


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Well, before you even think about the outside, check out the movement:










It's a military watch with a simple movement but just look at it for a while, yes, it is a very _English _movement: embedded in a tradition of aesthetic yet pragmatic engineering: take the balance bridge for example, that heart shape is almost Victorian in its whimsy and yet utterly functional. It almost defines the ethos of the machine. Simple, sparse and yet elegant. As you go into the movement you keep finding curves where you would expect angles or straight edges. look at the bridge for the escapement, notice that it curves sinuously half way around the balance; again functional yet somehow more than merely functional. Irrespective of where it was made, this was a movement that was _loved_ from design to execution. There are just too many little elegant flourishes for this not to be the case. The finishing touch of course is the frosted gilding, not copper like an Omega, but pure gold.

As you can see, it is easy to work on, regulates to astonishing stability for a watch of its age and has the most fabulous tick. The face and hands are the ergonomic masterpiece that is the MOD W10 spec while the case stretches out into a series of sinuous curves that keep the watch low and stable on the wrist while giving it the sort of presence a 36mm watch really doesn't deserve.

Any questions?:-!


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

Matt, very interesting. No wonder some say that mechanical watches have a _soul_, an element missing from a quartz. ;-)


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

I certainly don't say that and I feel sorry for those who do. Just because one is purely mechanical and the other is non transparently mechanical and informational in character doesn't mean it lacks (metaphorical) soul. Look at the 9F: there is plenty there that shows a degree of care and love that both meets and transcends the purely functional, or go back and read some of my descriptions of the E510 Exceed which certainly makes it into my top ten.

Alternatively, consider some insane quartz follies. The 7A38 is nuts enough, combining chrono and day date in a single wonderful metal movement. but when you drop this lump of sillyness into the 6020 case things just get out of hand: a day date chrono with diving capability and a diving bezel. What were they thinking? anyway, they didn't stop thinking it because some came in 'tactical' black PVD, for diving ninjas with a hectic social life presumably.










What did you expect a watch I really like to look like? No soul?


----------



## Cobalt (Jan 27, 2008)

Yes, what were Seiko thinking on that one? Do you know how much more they could have charged had they made this watch automatic, and labeled it "$wiss"? Dey got sum noive! b-)


----------



## South Pender (Jul 2, 2008)

M4tt said:


> Alternatively, consider some insane quartz follies. The 7A38 is nuts enough, combining chrono and day date in a single wonderful metal movement. but when you drop this lump of sillyness into the 6020 case things just get out of hand: a day date chrono with diving capability and a diving bezel. What were they thinking? anyway, they didn't stop thinking it because some came in 'tactical' black PVD, for diving ninjas with a hectic social life presumably.
> 
> ...What did you expect a watch I really like to look like? No soul?


Well, of course, no one said that schizophrenia and the presence of soul are mutually exclusive....


----------



## Fatpants (Sep 6, 2007)

fstshrk said:


> Marathon SAR quartz watches can probably make the same claim and they are 1/5th the price of the SMP300.


Yes, but Marathon doesn't have the same overheads as Omega, hence the price difference.


----------



## fstshrk (Mar 29, 2007)

Omega as part of being in the Swatch group probably has the least overhead of any manufacturer out there as they can spread the overhead across what seems like 100 brands ;-)



Fatpants said:


> Yes, but Marathon doesn't have the same overheads as Omega, hence the price difference.


----------



## petew (Apr 6, 2006)

I doubt that there is much sharing of overhead in the Swatch group. Do you think other brands are paying for Omega's use of high priced celebrity Ambassadors? Not likely. Each brand is its on unique business identity with their own buildings, staff, watchmakers etc. The only advantages I would think to being a part of the Swatch group would be easier access (and maybe a small price break) to the eta movements.


----------



## ppaulusz (Feb 11, 2006)

petew said:


> I doubt that there is much sharing of overhead in the Swatch group. Do you think other brands are paying for Omega's use of high priced celebrity Ambassadors?...


I don't know what is going on within the Swatch Group but one thing is for sure: Longines has abandoned its VHP thermocompensated watches - which is kind of weird when we're aware that there are still plenty thermocompensated ETA movements available within the group...:-s


----------



## FlyPenFly (May 18, 2009)

I'm entirely new to watches but I think what seems to be the tired soul vs. electronic heart argument is akin to:

Photography vs Painting

Ansel Adams vs Picasso, I find them both inspiring in different ways and there is no way to say one is better than the other in an objective sense.

Old Classic Cars vs New High Tech Cars

Anyone who has ever heard an E46 M3 through a tunnel with the top down and having the S54 straight six going full throttle can't claim a modern well designed independent throttle body has no soul. In fact, it has more soul than most classic cars.

I've purchased my first mechanical watch (an Omega) last week and today, I spent five minutes just listening to it tick. Never thought I'd ever do that with a watch. Something strangely comforting in the sound that's hard to describe.


----------

