# Co-axial movement: 2500 vs 8500?



## stockae92

what's the advantage of 8500 over 2500 co-axial movement?

8500 is a completely inhouse movement by Omega and has a longer power reserve, right?


----------



## RON in PA

The 8500 does have a longer power reserve. It still is really a Swatch (ETA) movement that is not 100% Omega in origin, even though they will try to push it as such. Really this doesn't matter IMHO opinion, it's more marketing than anything. Remember the lowly 7S26 Seiko movement is an in-house movement.

The 8500 was designed from the start as a co-axial movement while the 2500 is an Omega modified ETA 2892 movement fitted with a co-axial escapement that is currently in its third version, the 2500C. Hopefully they have learned the foibles of the co-axial with the 2500 and eliminated them with the 8500. My experience with the 2500C has been entirely positive, but the fact remains that I don't think that anyone can claim that the co-axial is actually superior to the Swiss lever escapement. 

I am of the opinion that Omega is using the co-axial and especially the 8500 to gain a unique identity for itself as a brand.


----------



## NEG

Sorry but that is not really correct. ETA are used for fabrication only the 8500 is designed in-house and assembled in-house.

The 8500 has twin barrels and was design around a revised co-axial escapement layout to fully realise its potential.


----------



## Jim3

> the 8500 is designed in-house and assembled in-house.


The 8500 was designed by Omega and manufactured 100% by Omega?


----------



## NEG

*assembled* in-house


----------



## NEG

_"In an admirable show of honesty, Mr. Monachon also cautioned us that although the calibre 8500/8501 are completely designed and developed within OMEGA Granges, it is dangerous to call the movement completely in-house manufactured. Without the help and assistant of Comadur, Nivarox, ETA and Frederick Piguet - all within the Swatch Group, the success of this calibre and the Deville Hour Vision model would not have been possible. The objective is to manufacture the complete movement and watch within OMEGA premises but at the moment, only assembly is done within the OMEGA compound."_

http://www.horomundi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152


----------



## SpringDriven

RON in PA said:


> but the fact remains that I don't think that anyone can claim that the co-axial is actually superior to the Swiss lever escapement.


The only fact about the above statement is that it is his opinion, and that it is not a universal one.

As far as the OP's question, you basically have it. Longer power reserve with two barrels, Co-Ax escapement, Free Sprung Balance, Full Bridge, (I assume that the rotor is on bearings of some kind) and many different versions will be made off the base 8500. (GMT, Annual Calendar, women's size etc). The decoration is very nice, and they have introduced on the Annual Calendar and the Women's AT the Silicon Balance Spring, which I assume they will eventually make standard in all their watches.

A fine line that will be difficult to cross in thought process is this. The movement was designed with SWATCH's resources. Swatch is using their resources to make this an exclusive movement for Omega. Same with Manufacture. So this is not an ETA movement, meaning that ETA only has a small part to play in what makes a Cal. 8500, ETA is not the sole manufacturer and it will not be available (unless swatch changes their mind in the future) to any other brand inside or outside the Swatch Group.


----------



## AIKO

NEG said:


> _"In an admirable show of honesty, Mr. Monachon also cautioned us that although the calibre 8500/8501 are completely designed and developed within OMEGA Granges, it is dangerous to call the movement completely in-house manufactured. Without the help and assistant of Comadur, Nivarox, ETA and Frederick Piguet - all within the Swatch Group, the success of this calibre and the Deville Hour Vision model would not have been possible. The objective is to manufacture the complete movement and watch within OMEGA premises but at the moment, only assembly is done within the OMEGA compound."_
> 
> http://www.horomundi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152


There you have it. ETA is a fine movement.


----------



## SpringDriven

AIKO said:


> There you have it. ETA is a fine movement.


But it is not ETA, to be most correct, it is a Swatch Group collaborated project.


----------



## Blame

What do you suppose are the chances the 8500 will end up in the current aqua terra's that house 2500's? The reason I ask is, I think the designs for the older watches are so much nicer than the teck line up.
I am a bit concerned with all the reports of 2500's going wrong and think maybe they won't last and in ten or twenty years time there may be a lot of paperweights out there.
Also, slightly off topic, does anyone ever hear of the 2403 having reliability issues? I think the Railmaster is a gorgeous watch, but don't see why it should not have issues if the 2500 it is based on has so many.


----------



## alanmd

The 2500 is a movement with some theoretical advantages over a traditional escapement, but which appears to have had a few teething troubles. In the last 10 years there are no reports of 2500s becoming paperweights, only a few having small problems which required adjustment/servicing.

The 8500 is a theoretical step up from the 2500, too early to say if it will have teething troubles or not


----------



## heavyduty

The main difference is perhaps that in the 2500, the Co-Axial escapement had to be designed and adapted to the space where the normal escapement would sit.

But in the 8500 calibers, everything has been developed *around* the Co-Axial escapement instead, meaning they first designed the optimal Co-Ax and only then the rest of the movement. The result of this is that the Co-Ax escapement in the 8500, besides from also being larger, is actually different from the other Co-Axs.

Is it better than the traditional escapement? We'll see. But my Annual Calendar, with the silicon balance spring, has lost only one second in almost 3 weeks. In my book, that's pretty good.


----------



## M4tt

> the fact remains that i don't think that anyone can claim that the co-axial is actually superior to the swiss lever escapement.


You know I think I can, simply by cutting and pasting a few thoughts I have had on the subject:

Sometime before 1758 Thomas Mudge invented the lever escapement. While this has been gently refined and improved, and materials technology has come a long way, the fact is that virtually every watch on the planet uses a variation on this escapement. While the escapement is a good compromise in many ways, it is totally inferior to some of the escapements used in clocks and especially in Marine Chronometers.

Clocks, especially clocks from which movement can be eliminated either through gimbals or simply mounting on a solid surface, have a wider range of far more accurate escapements that they can use. However, the movement that matters here is the Detent Escapement, invented in 1783 by Thomas Earnshaw, the father of the chronometer. While this _could _be stuffed into a watch it was fragile, temperamental and difficult to make.

What Daniels has achieved in the Coaxial escapement is a movement with all the advantages of both the Lever and the Detent escapement without the disadvantages of either. The contact surfaces in the coaxial escapement has a rolling rather than a sliding action which almost entirely removes friction, and thus the need for lubrication, while interfering with the balance far less, giving identical impulses in both directions and enhancing stability. The result, when properly tuned, has been described by one of the UK's greatest statisticians and horologists as 'comparable to a Marine Chronometer on gimbals'. Daniels himself is quoted as stating that he has tuned and timed a wristwatch with a coaxial escapement to an accuracy of five seconds a year. This is as good as the very best thermocompensated quartz watches.

Obviously, this is not the sort of accuracy to be expected from an off the shelf watch that has not been obsessively tuned by one of the greatest watchmakers of this, and any other, century. However, even off the shelf, the stability of the watch can be remarkable. Certainly, if one is prepared to pay for the guy who does their watches to spend a little more time on regulation to minimise the deviation and highlight the stability then the true excellence of the movement can be revealed.

Thus finally, and perhaps one hundred and fifty years too late, Daniels has offered us a watch escapement which could actually pass muster as a Marine Chronometer. While Daniels offered the escapement to many Swiss makers including Patak and Rolex, Omega were the manufacture who succeeded in converting it into the escapement for a mass market movement. Had this movement come significantly before quartz, Omega would have tuned the watch for maximum accuracy and sold it as the Marine Chronometer that it is. However, coming in a time when mechanical watches are not expected to better the pathetic criteria imposed by COSC they have not bothered and do not even bother either advertising or tuning the Coaxial's far higher stability.
In short, while there are better ebauches out there, there is no better escapement. As the escapement is the beating heart of a watch it elevates whichever movement it graces, whether this is the 10xx Omega movements used for the original development or the Rolex and Patak movements used to try to sell the movement to these manufactures. One day, all escapements will be like this.

Or:

I have a suspicion that, as quoted above, Ron In PA has clearly not fully grasped the principles and advantages of the Daniels' escapement, so as a vade mecum for any readers, the key advantages of the escapement in the 2500 are:

* Due to a rolling rather than a sliding action the pallet stones do not need lubrication and friction is reduced by about 95%. obviously this removes two major areas of instability in one: variations in the sliding surface due to bedding in and variations in the oil consistency due to age and temperature.

* The freesprung balance is far, far nearer to the mathematical ideal as it doesn't have a regulator interfering with the spring. This helps with all forms of stability, including, of course, positional stability.

* The impulse from the pallet stones is identical in both directions, unlike the 1120, oh, and every other watch on the planet. This gives a smoother more regular swing to the escapement and reduces the effects of position still further.

* The escapement is in contact with the balance for a far shorter period allowing more of the balance's swing to be free of interference, once again far closer to the mathematical ideal. (this, of course, can also reduce the effect of position)

* Wear on the contact surfaces of the escapement has been almost entirely eliminated.

The overall effect of these changes is reported here:

http://download1323.mediafire.com/pda5y21umvyg/cwaap6vhwnkq787/Woodwood+Review+of+Coaxial.PDF

I think that the key words here are:



> comparable to that of a marine chronometer in gimbals.


and the credentials of the chap making this claim are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Woodward

I reckon he may know what he's talking about!


----------



## heavyduty

Blame said:


> What do you suppose are the chances the 8500 will end up in the current aqua terra's that house 2500's?


It will not happen. Ever.


----------



## Sappie66

Am I missing something here? The 8500 is available in the Aqua Terra, though this line has not replaced the 2500 ATs. The 8500 ATs have nice stripey dials .


----------



## alanmd

Sappie66 said:


> Am I missing something here? The 8500 is available in the Aqua Terra, though this line has not replaced the 2500 ATs. The 8500 ATs have nice stripey dials .


The 2500 ATs are still around, but are being phased out.


----------



## BR549

heavyduty said:


> It will not happen. Ever.


LOL


----------



## M4tt

I'm resisting the temptation to photoshop red eyes on that baby...


----------



## heavyduty

BR549 said:


> LOL


I would bet my watch collection on it.
Would you bet your watches on the opposite?


----------



## BR549

They are already making 8500 ATs


----------



## RON in PA

In reply to M4tt, I am familiar with Woodward's article, in fact I have a copy.
I am also familiar with Daniels' writings on his escapement. His main purpose in developing the co-axial was to make a mechanical movement that could compete with the quartz oscillator watch in the area of required service, basically a mechanical watch movement needing little lubrication. In fact after reading Woodward and Daniels and studying the info available on the web I purchased an AT with the 2500C back in 2007. After a break-in period the watch settled down to a rather consistent 4 sec/day. To me the co-axial will prove itself if, on average, watches so fitted will maintain consistent accuracy over long periods of time and require much longer service intervals in comparison to the traditional Swiss lever watch. Will we the watch buying public ever know the true facts as to whether or not the co-axial has lived up to its potential ? That information is going to be hard to come by.


----------



## watchboffin

SpringDriven said:


> The only fact about the above statement is that it is his opinion, and that it is not a universal one.
> 
> As far as the OP's question, you basically have it. Longer power reserve with two barrels, Co-Ax escapement, Free Sprung Balance, Full Bridge, (I assume that the rotor is on bearings of some kind) and many different versions will be made off the base 8500.


I don't think the design set out to have more power reserve. It is simply a by product of the fact that the train needed more power/torque to keep the escapement running more reliably. The current practical size of mainspring barrels had reached their limits so the only option left to increase torque was to implement 2 barrels in series.

Looks like the torque has been increased by around 30% over the 2500. The co-ax escapement may need less lubrication now with the added torque to keep it going but I would think the rest of the train is going to be under even more stress and need earlier servicing now.

Any added stability is more down to the 2 barrels, free sprung balance etc etc. and not the co-ax escapement in itself. If you threw the same enhancements around a 2 prong escapement no doubt you would see an increase in stability here too.


----------



## SergeantYnot

RON in PA said:


> I am of the opinion that Omega is using the co-axial and especially the 8500 to gain a unique identity for itself as a brand.


Not only that, but to jack the price up an extra $1,200. :-!


----------



## Xaltotun

SergeantYnot said:


> Not only that, but to jack the price up an extra $1,200. :-!


I have been saying / complaining about that for a long time. If you search my past posts, you'll find a lot of me claiming that the chief advantage of the Co-Ax, _for now_, is to charge people more and to jazz up the marketing.

Kind of a personal rant :-d...


----------



## SergeantYnot

I'm not really sure why the Speedy doesn't have such a premium price over the PO, given its shiny history. The PO is relatively new, with a newer movement. In another post I wrote that when I was shopping for the SMP a few years ago, the 2500 was just being released. The SMP 1120 MSRP was $2,150, versus the $3,250 calibre 2500 model. Given this extroardinary increase, we'll be looking at a range of $4,000+++ for a calibre 8500 model methinks.


----------



## Benjamin Chin

I am a little off topic here.

Since we are in the topic of cal 8500, what do you guys think about it in comparison to the 9S67 (41 Jewels) used in Grand Seiko SBGL005, in terms of service / overhaul interval ? Does the 9S67 measure up ?


----------



## watchboffin

SergeantYnot said:


> I'm not really sure why the Speedy doesn't have such a premium price over the PO, given its shiny history. The PO is relatively new, with a newer movement. In another post I wrote that when I was shopping for the SMP a few years ago, the 2500 was just being released. The SMP 1120 MSRP was $2,150, versus the $3,250 calibre 2500 model. Given this extroardinary increase, we'll be looking at a range of $4,000+++ for a calibre 8500 model methinks.


Yee thinks correct. The Omega bean counters probably think that if they can make the design as exclusive & as complicated as possible then they can justify the price to lift it in range of Rolex and beyond.

They would just love it if they captured more of the market where the mere mention of $ prices was considered vulgar. :roll:


----------



## M4tt

> Any added stability is more down to the 2 barrels, free sprung balance etc etc. and not the co-ax escapement in itself. If you threw the same enhancements around a 2 prong escapement no doubt you would see an increase in stability here too.


Interesting claim: two barrels equals increased stability. Can you explain precisely how anything more than adequate torque will improve matters? 
Can you also elucidate what precisely 'etc etc' refers to.

I'm not denying that the FS balance helps stability in any watch, Rolex have been using the Microstella system for years to great effect.

However, as I have argued elsewhere in this thread, the coaxial escapement takes full advantage of the FSB while the lever escapement doesn't, not least because it spends far more time in contact with the balance and gives unequal impulses in either direction.

I think I have made the case for precisely why the combination of the Coaxial escapement and the FS balance leads to much higher stability. I guess this will need refuting too.

Frankly, I am bored to tears with reading *evidence free* assertions that the coaxial escapement is pointless.


----------



## watchboffin

M4tt said:


> Interesting claim: two barrels equals increased stability. Can you explain precisely how anything more than adequate torque will improve matters?
> Can you also elucidate what precisely 'etc etc' refers to.


2 barrels to increase torque leads to increased stability. It basic physics....

The anology is a car offering a base 4 banger engine for price and economy. Load that car up with passengers and luggage and throw in a hill or 2 and the engine will feel that load and make it work hard. Now take that same car and offer the more powerful V6 option. The engine will still need to work hard for the same passenger, luggage and hill loads but the driver will notice he doesn't have to keep his foot planted as deep on the throttle pedal to keep the speed stable as compared to the 4 banger.

More torque (or more power delivered over a shorter time period) leads to less sensitivity to varying load (say 5 adjusted positions). Less sensitivity to load means more accuracy/stability.

Another anology is a power amp and speakers. More reserve power leads to less distortion (more stability) on the load/speakers even when driven at a fraction of it's maximum power.

I can quote you Newton laws and real number examples if you really want to be bored to tears on this point.

etc etc is things like improved spring, balance, wheel, pinion, bridge materials & design. Anything that improves effeciencies in the transfer of energy between rotor, mainspring, escapement and dial works.


----------



## M4tt

Before responding, I just want to be absolutely sure that this is what you intended to say:



> More torque (or more power delivered over a shorter time period) leads to less sensitivity to varying load (say 5 adjusted positions). Less sensitivity to load means more accuracy/stability.


and that you stand by it?


----------



## watchboffin

M4tt said:


> Before responding, I just want to be absolutely sure that this is what you intended to say:
> 
> and that you stand by it?


Sure do. Basic physics. If you supply greater potential energy, ie 60 hours of reserve here with greater torque then the pendulum swing of the balance wheel transitioning between PE and KE will not need to be as much of a drain on the mainspring's energy output potential. By having the escapement's drain be of a smaller fraction of the overall mainspring potential you gain the advantage of stability or less sensitivity to varying loads.

In addition the fact that these twin barrels give 60 hours of reserve power means that the mainsprings will be operating up and down in a narrower window of the reserves for a given owner's wearing habits compared to say that of mainspring with only 44 hours of power reserve. By keeping the spring tension operating in a narrow range of the overall reserves will result in less variations of the torque output too...Again more stability.

Do you think Omega would go to great lengths of designing a twin barrel drive purely for an extra 5 hours of power reserve? I don't think so.


----------



## M4tt

As you say, basic physics. Now I'll be absolutely clear: _you are walking into a trap of entirely your own making here_. I reiterate, are you absolutely sure that this is what you intended to say? (I'm busy I'm afraid, so I'll be slow to respond.)

And no, it isn't simply that time doesn't feature in the definition of torque as you appear to imply.


----------



## watchboffin

M4tt said:


> As you say, basic physics. Now I'll be absolutely clear: _you are walking into a trap of entirely your own making here_. I reiterate, are you absolutely sure that this is what you intended to say? (I'm busy I'm afraid, so I'll be slow to respond.)
> 
> And no, it isn't simply that time doesn't feature in the definition of torque as you appear to imply.


No problem. Busy here too as it's a holiday weekend.

BTW - I don't believe I implied that torque is defined and includes the measurement of time. However, I did try to imply that power is related to how torque is applied to a load for a given length of time.


----------



## M4tt

I did say 'appear'

Well, having started being enigmatic, I might as well carry on. Go back and look at my bulletpointed vade mecum and think about whether you are arguing one of them for me.


----------



## watchboffin

M4tt said:


> I did say 'appear'
> 
> Well, having started being enigmatic, I might as well carry on. Go back and look at my bulletpointed vade mecum and think about whether you are arguing one of them for me.


True, and the enigma appears to sidestep.

Well I must bid you good day as I have a date with Mexico for some S, S & S and some much needed R&R. Fingers crossed I won't get a dose of swine flu or the shish kebabs b-)

Enjoy the rest of the holiday.


----------



## M4tt

No sidestep here.

I see two issues:

1) As you stated:



> More torque (or more power delivered over a shorter time period) leads to less sensitivity to varying load


compare this to my statement that:



> *The escapement is in contact with the balance for a far shorter period *allowing more of the balance's swing to be free of interference, once again far closer to the mathematical ideal. (this, of course, can also reduce the effect of position)


It seems clear to me that you have just agreed that one of the undeniable facts (that the Coaxial Escapement gives shorter, more powerful impulses to the balance than a lever escapement) about the Coaxial will lead to increased stability.

This leads to

2) Your car and audio metaphors are hugely misleading.



> More torque (or more power delivered over a shorter time period) leads to less sensitivity to varying load (say 5 adjusted positions). Less sensitivity to load means more accuracy/stability.


You appear to imply that adjustment for positions is a *load*. It isn't of course. The load that the torque has to overcome is almost entirely the combination of all the friction in the movement. However, the escapement needs to put a very precise amount of energy into the balance. If it puts more energy in the watch will slow down. The escapement thus has the job of parcelling out the energy very precisely. Adequate torque is all it needs. More than adequate will make no difference at all. To be charitable, I will assume you were talking about long term stability and overcoming increased friction. However this does mean that your 'say 5 adjusted positions' comment is a bit mysterious. can you explain how this is load?

Your second analogy seems even worse:



> Another analogy is a power amp and speakers. More reserve power leads to less distortion (more stability) on the load/speakers even when driven at a fraction of it's maximum power.


The idea that the 'reserve power' is what causes stability is simply wrong. What causes the stability is having *components *that can *cope* with more power, not simply having more power.

In short, your two analogies appear to suggest that you are a little confused about the role of 'power' in enhancing stability. I think it might be helpful if, rather than using metaphors, you explain precisely how more power than _adequate _will make a well maintained movement more stable.

I hope you had a good Mexican vacation.


----------



## watchboffin

M4tt said:


> I see two issues:
> 
> 1) As you stated:
> Quote:More torque (or more power delivered over a shorter time period) leads to less sensitivity to varying load
> 
> compare this to my statement that:
> 
> It seems clear to me that you have just agreed that one of the undeniable facts (that the Coaxial Escapement gives shorter, more powerful impulses to the balance than a lever escapement) about the Coaxial will lead to increased stability.


 My statement makes no mention of a coaxial escapement or any other type of escapement design. If you reread the earlier thread the statement quoted was in response to questioning the advantages of the 2 barrel design in terms of stability in driving any given load&#8230;be it a co-ax or 2 prong lever plus all the rest of the movement's moving parts under load.

Your response here seems to be hung up on purely the intrinsic stability of the co-axial escapement and how it makes better use of the supplied torque in a more efficient manner compared to other designs. My statement, in direct response to the earlier thread on the twin barrels, was focused on the bigger picture and the improved stability due to the power supply designed along with any other improvements in the rest of the train to deliver stable torque as efficiently as possible up to and including the escape wheel. Stability is not solely reflected by the design of the escapement.

As a side note, "&#8230;shorter, more powerful impulses&#8230;" is a contradiction in terms. For a given amount of torque if you shorten the impulse time of the torque applied the power is less not more.



M4tt said:


> This leads to
> 
> 2) Your car and audio metaphors are hugely misleading.
> 
> You appear to imply that adjustment for positions is a *load*. It isn't of course. The load that the torque has to overcome is almost entirely the combination of all the friction in the movement. However, the escapement needs to put a very precise amount of energy into the balance. If it puts more energy in the watch will slow down. The escapement thus has the job of parcelling out the energy very precisely. Adequate torque is all it needs. More than adequate will make no difference at all. To be charitable, I will assume you were talking about long term stability and overcoming increased friction. However this does mean that your 'say 5 adjusted positions' comment is a bit mysterious. can you explain how this is load?


I didn't say the 5 adjusted positions is a load nor did I imply that adjustment for positions is a load. I said when the load varies for say the 5 adjusted positions. I was simply giving an example in which the load might vary. I could also have given the example of activating a chrono function if fitted or the calendar date beginning transition as a variation in load.

If you're questioning my implied notion and you believe that load does not vary between the 5 different positions then I must disagree. Frictional forces will change in different positions, for example if a pinion is resting more on a side jewel as opposed to an end cap. If the frictional force is varying then the load is varying. Different positions also vary the load from other components on the dial side for a dressed movement so load variations are not simply constrained to the train side.



M4tt said:


> Your second analogy seems even worse:
> 
> The idea that the 'reserve power' is what causes stability is simply wrong. What causes the stability is having *components *that can *cope* with more power, not simply having more power.


Since my 2nd analogy is misleading and worse for you, I'm happy to just add my response to this as a footnote and we can leave it outside the main discussion.



M4tt said:


> In short, your two analogies appear to suggest that you are a little confused about the role of 'power' in enhancing stability. I think it might be helpful if, rather than using metaphors, you explain precisely how more power than _adequate _will make a well maintained movement more stable.


The crux of my statement proposed that an improved power supply will result in less sensitivity to varying loads&#8230;more torque that is less sensitive to varying loads will result in more stable torque delivered up to and including the escape wheel. The impulses making use of this torque would much prefer to have a steady regulated stream of torque immune to varying loads from the rest of the movement in order to assist in stability of time keeping. And that is true for both a co-axial or non co-axial.

I'm sure the 2500 and 3313 were all rolled out with 'adequate' torque as you say. It seems very strange then that subsequent upgrades to the escapement and detuning the bps were needed to apply this 'adequate' torque in an attempt to keep things more stable. Sensitive torque from the power supply might explain why they stop unexpectedly and when the chrono function is activated or why 'lubrication' issues are continually bantered around the issue. Any movement stopping unexpectedly for any reason is an extreme case of instability. If they'd done a better job of matching the load characteristics with the power supplied in the first place then they might not be in such a pickle.



M4tt said:


> I hope you had a good Mexican vacation.


Yes thanks, very enjoyable. Unfortunately it's back to work time. :-(

Foot Note:

More power reserves for a power amp does indeed lead to better stability and it has absolutely nothing to do with the components ability to cope with the available power. It does have everything to do with how much available reserve power is supplied in order to drive the speaker's coil opposing inductance (an important part of it's overall load/impedance) which has a direct bearing on the stability observed by the transient response.

By supplying more power reserve, the current hungry speaker's coil can react much quicker to follow the ideal signal response.

So let's take a specific audio amp and measure the distortion and then change the power supply for an inferior one with lower power reserves and leave everything else unchanged (so the amplifier section and speaker components are all left unchanged and so their ability to cope with power is therefore unchanged). If we now re-measure distortion, well within clipping limits, it will be clearly observed that the transient response is affected negatively. The reason is the ceiling of power reserve and transient current delivery capability has been reduced. The speaker's inductance as part of impedance will exhibit a slower response time in getting the coil movement to throw it to the position it's ideally targeting and following.

There are many examples in the real world where audiophile manufacturers will take earlier versions of their existing production amps and simply upgrade the power supplies with more efficient powerful transformers and bigger smoothing capacitors purely in an attempt to improve signal response/stability when driving the speakers, even at moderate volume levels.


----------



## rgreen2

Can anyone tell me what happened to *M4tt* ????

this thread was getting exciting and then...

Are co-axial escapements the way to go or not?


----------



## ulackfocus

rgreen2 said:


> Can anyone tell me what happened to *M4tt* ????


He got tired of the inane bickering along with opinions being stated as fact without data to back them up so he's on sabbatical. I think he's popped in once or twice but not in the way he used to.


----------



## Harpoonio

rgreen2 said:


> Can anyone tell me what happened to *M4tt* ????
> 
> this thread was getting exciting and then...
> 
> Are co-axial escapements the way to go or not?


Well, reading watchboffins calm, measured, replies I would hazard a guess that m4tt graciously acknowledged he'd been debated to a standstill like the gentleman he comes across as being.
But Im wondering why youve dredged up this ancient thread?


----------



## M4tt

I think the real point here was simply that as two weeks had passed, I simply missed this one. Watchboffin is certainly not the problem. We disagree about the coaxial, but that's not a problem, like many on WUS, he's a clever chap and actually presents an argument that is worth arguing with. That is _always _fun.

As I have said several times, if I could manage not to care about things (like the reputation of the 2500) a little more then I would enjoy WUS far more. As it is, I get involved and waste an enormous amount of time and energy on people who are victims of the Dunning - Kruger effect, cognitive dissonance, or both.

As for the coaxial, I doubt I have a thought about the damn thing that isn't already posted somewhere on this forum if you can be bothered to find it. If you want a better all round automatic movement, you arguably have a few choices, if you want a more stable escapement, buy a clock.


----------



## DaBaeker

the only 'certainty' I feel is that I am bound to make some stupid assumption about watches in the future. It took me a while to learn to read more-write less. As a result -I know a little more than I used to know. and I sure am enjoying my stable 4+ days of +/- 1/2 sec 2500c PO. Oh yes -howdy M.


----------



## M4tt

Hi DB.


----------



## ddatta

M4tt said:


> I think the real point here was simply that as two weeks had passed, I simply missed this one. Watchboffin is certainly not the problem. We disagree about the coaxial, but that's not a problem, like many on WUS, he's a clever chap and actually presents an argument that is worth arguing with. That is _always _fun.
> 
> As I have said several times, if I could manage not to care about things (like the reputation of the 2500) a little more then I would enjoy WUS far more. As it is, I get involved and waste an enormous amount of time and energy on people who are victims of the Dunning - Kruger effect, cognitive dissonance, or both.
> 
> As for the coaxial, I doubt I have a thought about the damn thing that isn't already posted somewhere on this forum if you can be bothered to find it. If you want a better all round automatic movement, you arguably have a few choices, if you want a more stable escapement, buy a clock.


Hi M4tt


----------



## acdelco

hey m4tt, for what it's worth, i actually spoke with a person at Nesbit's ( the authorized Omega Service Center in Seattle, WA that is servicing my blue bond non-coaxial) . nesbit's gets good reviews here on the board for their repair service. he stated that while the initial coaxial models (i.e. the A and B versions) had some problems with stoppages due to shock resistance, he had seen very few POs with problems/stoppages. he stated that the problems were no more than any other autos. if some people continue to insist on relying on anecdotal evidence and what they hear( not a great way to start with) in making conclusions on a movement, they'd be FAR better off talking to service centers IMO.... rather than relying on watch forums teeming with folks that can't see the forest beyond the leaves on a tree.

Incidentally, i was out in Phoenix, Arizona recently and saw an Assistant United States Attorney ( federal prosecutor) sporting a Planet Ocean. Looked real sharp.



M4tt said:


> I think the real point here was simply that as two weeks had passed, I simply missed this one. Watchboffin is certainly not the problem. We disagree about the coaxial, but that's not a problem, like many on WUS, he's a clever chap and actually presents an argument that is worth arguing with. That is _always _fun.
> 
> As I have said several times, if I could manage not to care about things (like the reputation of the 2500) a little more then I would enjoy WUS far more. As it is, I get involved and waste an enormous amount of time and energy on people who are victims of the Dunning - Kruger effect, cognitive dissonance, or both.
> 
> As for the coaxial, I doubt I have a thought about the damn thing that isn't already posted somewhere on this forum if you can be bothered to find it. If you want a better all round automatic movement, you arguably have a few choices, if you want a more stable escapement, buy a clock.


----------



## matlt

I for one love reading these discussions between m4tt and watchboffin. It is when I learn the most about watches and get the most elegant explanations of the how and the why, instead of just the what. Also, the discussions between these two are always absent of compalining, crying, and name calling. That is an exceedingly rare attribute on any type of forums, and it results in a great education for us common folk that don't know everything there is to know about watches.


----------



## watchboffin

That's very nice to hear. 
Thank you and hello all :-!


----------



## DaBaeker

watchboffin said:


> That's very nice to hear.
> Thank you and hello all :-!


I actually liked your combustion engine analogy. m4 says its a little misleading because it seems so straight forward. Not wanting to miss the forest for the trees I tried to see it both ways. but are you saying that it takes more energy(torque) to keep the co-axial running stably as it does to keep the lever escapement running as stably? ( im no physics wiz but i think I grasp the basic mechanics of how the two movements create (and/or reduce) friction while transferring the power from the barrels to the hands.


----------



## DaBaeker

watchboffin said:


> That's very nice to hear.
> Thank you and hello all :-!


I actually liked your combustion engine analogy. m4 says its a little misleading because it seems so straight forward. Not wanting to miss the forest for the trees I tried to see it both ways. but are you saying that it takes more energy(torque) to keep the co-axial running stably as it does to keep the lever escapement running as stably? [ im no physics wiz but i think I grasp the basic mechanics of how the two movements create (and/or reduce) friction while transferring the power from the barrels to the hands.]

It was an interesting discussion however. The daniels co-ax is the most curious looking design and it makes me wonder what kind of 'mad' geniius it took to conceive of and translate such a design into pure precision. and as of 5days my 2500c is running at -1/2 sec which officially makes it my most accurate mechanical replacing a rolexDJ, omega sm1040 and SpM1140 respectively. But after 5months I'll know more.


----------



## watchboffin

DaBaeker said:


> I actually liked your combustion engine analogy. m4 says its a little misleading because it seems so straight forward. Not wanting to miss the forest for the trees I tried to see it both ways. but are you saying that it takes more energy(torque) to keep the co-axial running stably as it does to keep the lever escapement running as stably?


Well according to Omega's own marketing material they say the co-axial 8500 does need 4% more running power/torque ("Regulating-power") compared to a typical traditional lever escapement. Not that I want to re-open this already much discussed and debated can of worms...








But my analogy of the 4 banger compared to the V6 is more in keeping with the 35% increase of usable energy here. I was trying to assert that more reserves assists stability by improving regulation of torque to varying loads. This is probably more important regards stability than the fact that the co-axial uses fractionally more power at the escapement.


----------



## DaBaeker

watchboffin said:


> . Not that I want to re-open this already much discussed and debated can of worms...


 dont worry about the worms. your discussion w m4 was the best part of that thread. the two of you were trying to hash out (at least from my perspective) the mechanics of the 8500/2500 co-x/lever esc issue. it was based on your two knowledge of mechanics as you understand it. I think the problem some had was the representing opinion as based in fact which has nothing to do with you. Anecdotal info or 'store rep' opinions have there place in the promoting sales and 'wow' factor but not in a highly technical debate. Personally-i didnt find this thread nearly-if at all as snarky as many other 'infamous' threads here on wus


----------



## watchboffin

DaBaeker said:


> dont worry about the worms. your discussion w m4 was the best part of that thread. the two of you were trying to hash out (at least from my perspective) the mechanics of the 8500/2500 co-x/lever esc issue. it was based on your two knowledge of mechanics as you understand it. I think the problem some had was the representing opinion as based in fact which has nothing to do with you. Anecdotal info or 'store rep' opinions have there place in the promoting sales and 'wow' factor but not in a highly technical debate. Personally-i didnt find this thread nearly-if at all as snarky as many other 'infamous' threads here on wus


That's good to hear. I try to base any argument on the facts at hand and experience of real life working on movements. 
With reference to the anecdotal info, I'm sure both types of movements have a tendency to slow or stop when in need of service. My concern is whether the co-ax is going to need more servicing/cost to maintain over the life time of ownership.


----------



## M4tt

> I was trying to assert that more reserves assists stability by improving regulation of torque to varying loads. This is probably more important regards stability than the fact that the co-axial uses fractionally more power at the escapement.


We were not disagreeing by much. I was merely asserting that anything more than *adequate *torque was unnecessary. (And, of course, the far bigger issue that I think the coaxial is demonstrably far more stable, not less.)

The car analogy implies that there are massive changes in torque requirement (due to loading) relative to the power available. In the watch case there is massive torque available compared to the possible variations of torque requirement (I don't care about the 3133, but in the 2500, I'm not at all sure where the loading equivalent to driving up a hill would come from while within the service period) . Either mainspring can run down in under a minute with the escapement removed.

I agree that the 2500 will have higher service costs and that Omega's initial claim of longer service intervals was disingenuous and wrong. However, the coaxial offers unprecedented stability and I think that is worth paying a bit more for at service.

I also agree that both will tend to become less stable when in need of a service. The coaxial will last a bit longer because failing pallet stone lubrication is usually the first cause of inaccuracy in a lever but will not be in a coaxial (as they are not lubricated), but as I have always said, this is a bad thing as it will allow people to wear their watches out inadvertently. You could say that Omega have removed the 'service needed' indicator!


----------



## lvt

I confess that I do like some Omega watches but none of them is Co-ax.


----------



## v76

watchboffin said:


> I don't think the design set out to have more power reserve. It is simply a by product of the fact that the train needed more power/torque to keep the escapement running more reliably. The current practical size of mainspring barrels had reached their limits so the only option left to increase torque was to implement 2 barrels in series.
> 
> Looks like the torque has been increased by around 30% over the 2500. The co-ax escapement may need less lubrication now with the added torque to keep it going but I would think the rest of the train is going to be under even more stress and need earlier servicing now.
> 
> Any added stability is more down to the 2 barrels, free sprung balance etc etc. and not the co-ax escapement in itself. If you threw the same enhancements around a 2 prong escapement no doubt you would see an increase in stability here too.


I disagree with that - I think stability of rate (long-term) claimed for the co-axial has more to do with how the impulses are delivered in the escapement rather than the free-sprung balance or the twin mainspring barrels.

Even looking at the regulating power, the difference is very marginal. I also suspect that there is more power dissipation with the sliding-contact nature of the traditional escapement, hence due to less dissipation, more power is available for the impulses provided in the co-ax. It is apparent from the design that the relative surface area of contact is a lot smaller in the case of the co-axial escapement. More sliding friction for traditional, more rolling for the co-ax.

I also think that a lot of high and mid-end marques making their own movements are moving to multiple mainspring barrels, free-sprung balances etc. to provide greater power reserve and easier/more reliable regulation in their watches (apart from the free-sprung balance providing enhanced positional, among other kinds of stability). Long-term rate stability has always been Omega's claim with the co-ax, let's see how that goes. I also feel that M4tt has a whole lot of valid points in his arguements. I'm sorry if I have drudged up an old thread which was done and dusted.


----------



## v76

watchboffin said:


> Sure do. Basic physics. If you supply greater potential energy, ie 60 hours of reserve here with greater torque then the pendulum swing of the balance wheel transitioning between PE and KE will not need to be as much of a drain on the mainspring's energy output potential. By having the escapement's drain be of a smaller fraction of the overall mainspring potential you gain the advantage of stability or less sensitivity to varying loads.
> 
> In addition the fact that these twin barrels give 60 hours of reserve power means that the mainsprings will be operating up and down in a narrower window of the reserves for a given owner's wearing habits compared to say that of mainspring with only 44 hours of power reserve. By keeping the spring tension operating in a narrow range of the overall reserves will result in less variations of the torque output too...Again more stability.
> 
> Do you think Omega would go to great lengths of designing a twin barrel drive purely for an extra 5 hours of power reserve? I don't think so.


A linear torque curve extracted from the mainspring has more to do with the material properties of the spring. I do agree that if the watch is operating in the wound state of the spring where the unwinding rate is linear, then your point is valid. And, this might be the case if the owner wears the watch regularly.

However, the aim of movement makers is to make this linear range as large as is practically possible, and this would mean trying to extend this characteristic over most (if not all) the rated power reserve of the movement.

I do not agree with your earlier automobile analogies. You can design a 4 cylinder engine to produce much more torque (and hence load-pulling ability) than a v6 or v8. It is just that the torque characteristics are different for different cylinder/engine layouts, and you need to look more at "how" the torque is delivered rather than "how much". It is also practical to design high-capacity engines with a higher number of cylinders to keep down manufacturing costs, failure rate, increase fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs.

I also understand and agree with other aspects about multiple mainspring barrels which you have discussed. There are two ways to extend the power reserve with a single mainspring barrel - 1) Make the spring more slender ... however, this brings about another problem. With this solution you are reducing the spring stiffness and hence reducing the amount of energy the spring can store. This necessitates redesign of the entire gear-train system to account for the reduced power available and still keep the watch ticking in-time.
2) Make a longer spring, and hence increase the barrel size ... this also has its problems - you have to increase barrel size and hence reduce space available for other movement components in the watch. Also, a much longer mainspring has the tendency to "unwind" faster towards the end of the watches power reserve (this is true of all springs, but is exacerbated with longer/single mainsprings). The balance amplitude is also disturbed when the spring is fully "wound", hence you have discrepencies with both fully "wound" and "near empty" large mainsprings.

This is another reason to use well-designed multiple barrels - to ensure the rate of "unwind" is constant over a larger % of the watches total power reserve (apart from it being space saving and offering movement design flexibility, among other advantages).


----------



## firstOwatch

watchboffin said:


> Yee thinks correct. The Omega bean counters probably think that if they can make the design as exclusive & as complicated as possible then they can justify the price to lift it in range of Rolex and beyond.
> 
> They would just love it if they captured more of the market where the mere mention of $ prices was considered vulgar. :roll:


Not long ago, not much differences in prices between Omega & Rolex !
Being " in house movement," proven innovation, marketing and lifting price! Omega could be as prestige as Rolex! :-!Back to the good old time! 
( I'm going to spend more for 8500!!! ) :roll:


----------



## Valjoe

The difference is 6000


----------



## Zidane

Ugh...a bumped post over a year old for _that _comment.

PS - The difference in price (I assume that's what you're referring to) is much less than that.


----------



## Mark Standen

I thought this thread was great - it was a great help in cementing my decision to buy the Omega aqua terra co-ax so thanks to M4tt and Watchboffin for their insights and for helping to understand the background and benefits of the awesome movement. Thanks also to the person who said this watch would never come out  I've been really pleased with it so far (after having to replace the leather strap, that is) and I haven't noticed any loss of time... happy days!

Anyway, I've now got the bug so I've started looking into my next watch which will be a chrono. I've been looking for something with very clear sub-dials, so some IMCs look good, but I'm also into the Omega heritage. Apart from perhaps the Moonwatch though, I've not seen anything... until I came across the Speedmaster Co-ax 9300 calibre. A good review has appeared on the forum by Robert-Jan for this:
OMEGA Speedmaster Co-Axial Chronograph Caliber 9300 - My Personal Favorite Of 2011 | Fratellowatches.com

However, I wondered what was thought of this movement? Do the same pros and cons that have been described in this thread apply to the 9300, even with its additional (i.e. chrono) features? M4tt and Watchboffin - any thoughts?

Also, does anyone know much about the 9301 movements (or equally the 8501)? I can't find anything online apart from some very basic stuff on the Omega website...


----------



## Richard M.

Greetings All,

This forum is excellent as I am looking to acquire my first Omega time piece. I was looking to get the Planet Ocean Big Size, model 2208.50.00. I went to the Omega store in NYC and was shown the new model, 232.30.46.21.01.002 and at first glance they looked the same. After an hour of talking to the sales rep and having been shown the differences, which besides the new movment, are all comesmetic I am left wondering which to get.

Is the new movement worth the price difference? $5900usd for the 2nd gen vs. $4500 for the 1st gen. From looking at the posts I appreciate the technical aspects that were shared. But at the end of the day, is the new movement that much more better. I.E. does the first generation Planet Ocean break down so often it has to be sent in for repairs. Is it minutes, or hours slower/faster then is acceptable? If I dropped the watch(sadly I dropped my Breitling Datora from waist height while going through the airport security check and the chronograph reset button did not work anymore and I had to send the watch in for repairs) does the movement stop working? becomes unreliable?

Are the cosemetic changes really worth the price difference? If you had to pick between the first gen vs. second gen which would you get?

Thank you all for your feedback.


----------



## Zidane

Richard M. said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> This forum is excellent as I am looking to acquire my first Omega time piece. I was looking to get the Planet Ocean Big Size, model 2208.50.00. I went to the Omega store in NYC and was shown the new model, 232.30.46.21.01.002 and at first glance they looked the same. After an hour of talking to the sales rep and having been shown the differences, which besides the new movment, are all comesmetic I am left wondering which to get.
> 
> Is the new movement worth the price difference? $5900usd for the 2nd gen vs. $4500 for the 1st gen. From looking at the posts I appreciate the technical aspects that were shared. But at the end of the day, is the new movement that much more better. I.E. does the first generation Planet Ocean break down so often it has to be sent in for repairs. Is it minutes, or hours slower/faster then is acceptable? If I dropped the watch(sadly I dropped my Breitling Datora from waist height while going through the airport security check and the chronograph reset button did not work anymore and I had to send the watch in for repairs) does the movement stop working? becomes unreliable?
> 
> Are the cosemetic changes really worth the price difference? If you had to pick between the first gen vs. second gen which would you get?
> 
> Thank you all for your feedback.


Welcome to the forum.

Tough call on if the movement is worth the extra $. I'd pick which watch you like the best aesthetically and then go from there. The 2500 movement is a fine movement (mine runs at +1 sec/day). As with any mechanical device, there are problems from time to time but it's impossible to tell if the 2500 is any more or less reliable than the new 8500 b/c we don't have the data from Omega. The new 8500 movement has better finishing and is more advanced. If you're comparing movement to movement, I'd pick the 8500 in a heartbeat just because of the new tech. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with the 2500 though, the 8500 is just that much more advanced.

If you drop either watch, or any mechanical watch for that matter, you'll likely have damage.

You're the only one who can decide if the aesthetic differences are worth the price difference. I prefer the looks of the older version myself.


----------



## Richard M.

Hi, 
Thanks for the quick feedback! I've decided to go with the 1[SUP]st[/SUP]generation Plant Ocean Big Size mainly due to price. Besides I can always get asecond generation or third generation (if it is developed) watch later on.
I have a few questions though. I have a friend who has beenin the jewelry business for years and works in the diamond district here inNYC. He is able to get the watch for me from his wholesaler for $3500 asopposed to $4500 retail. I trust my friend, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't becautious. 
How can I tell if it's legit? I have already gone to theOmega store and tried to take a mental image of the watch's weight and characteristics.But at the time I was comparing the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] gen vs 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] gen. Inoticed the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] gen has HE on the HE crown, I can't remember if the1[SUP]st[/SUP] gen has it as well. Also where is the serial number located?What happens if the Wholesaler does not sign/stamp the warranty card; can I stilluse the 2 year warranty should I need to send the watch in for repairs. Do I needa bill of sale to send in with the warranty card? I don't doubt if the watch isreal or not, my friend has never gotten me a fake watch. My concern is reallywith the warranty. I have never asked him to obtain a watch of this valuebefore. He has always gotten me watches that cost $200 to $800 dollars and thewarranty card was never stamped/signed.
Besides the font on the dial, the weight of the watch, whatshould I look out for? I read somewhere that some Omegas have a red dot toindicated the watch was never opened after it was put together.
Thanks again for all the feed back.


----------



## Richard M.

Hi

does anyone know where the serial number will be located on the watch? and do all planet oceans have HE on the HE crown? Also, do they all have this red dot to prove it's sealed?


----------



## GTTIME

Richard M. said:


> Hi
> 
> does anyone know where the serial number will be located on the watch? and do all planet oceans have HE on the HE crown? Also, do they all have this red dot to prove it's sealed?


Serial number is on the bottom of the 7:00 lug. I believe they all have He on the valve and they had the red dot from the factory.


----------



## SMP89

Richard M. said:


> Hi
> 
> does anyone know where the serial number will be located on the watch? and do all planet oceans have HE on the HE crown? Also, do they all have this red dot to prove it's sealed?


hello, new here! thought i'd register to answer these questions.... from my understanding. the 2500 in the P.O. is the same as the SMP. The Helium valve on my SMP has an omega symbol. not "He" like the newer models. the 2500 isn't in-house. it's built using parts from swatch. (since omega is owned by swatch group). the 8500 movement is supposed to be 100% in-house built by omega, but my authorized dealer (omega boutique, Tyson's Corner mall, McLean,VA) told me "secretly" otherwise that that's not quite the case.

as for authenticity. KEY THINGS to look for: red dot; meaning the case hasn't been opened by anyone...yet. on the back case, there should be an omega symbol under the seahorse. A globe with the omega symbol inside of it....and let's see, oh yes, the serial number should be on the back, following the 7 o'clock position. if i repeated anyone, apologies, i just remember looking hard for answers like these myself, and figured i'd give my 2 cents. OH! and the difference between the 1st gen P.O. and the 2nd gen P.O. are the bezels. 1st gen is aluminium, and 2nd gen is ceramic.









can see all 3 "authenticity" features.


----------



## OTX

SMP89 said:


> hello, new here! thought i'd register to answer these questions.... from my understanding. the 2500 in the P.O. is the same as the SMP. The Helium valve on my SMP has an omega symbol. not "He" like the newer models. the 2500 isn't in-house. it's built using parts from swatch. (since omega is owned by swatch group). the 8500 movement is supposed to be 100% in-house built by omega, but my authorized dealer (omega boutique, Tyson's Corner mall, McLean,VA) told me "secretly" otherwise that that's not quite the case.
> 
> as for authenticity. KEY THINGS to look for: red dot; meaning the case hasn't been opened by anyone...yet. on the back case, there should be an omega symbol under the seahorse. A globe with the omega symbol inside of it....and let's see, oh yes, the serial number should be on the back, following the 7 o'clock position. if i repeated anyone, apologies, i just remember looking hard for answers like these myself, and figured i'd give my 2 cents. OH! and the difference between the 1st gen P.O. and the 2nd gen P.O. are the bezels. 1st gen is aluminium, and 2nd gen is ceramic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can see all 3 "authenticity" features.


Your dealer is wrong. The Omega 8500 is an in house movement designed by Omega and only used in Omega watches. It's one of the best movements made in a very long time. If we want to nitpick then I doubt any movement by any company is 100% in house. The 8500 is definitely worth the the $1500 over the 2500 movement. As a matter of fact it's a bargain at only $1500 more. The Si14 balance spring alone in the PO 8500 retails for $1000!. As much as I respect the 2500 movement the 8500 movement is on a whole different level. The finishing, the double barrels that offer a longer stability of accurate timing than the 2500. The 8500 is also 60 hour power reserve as well compared to 48 hours with the 2500. The 8500 is no doubt worth the extra. Don't get me wrong the 2500 is a good simple movement but the 8500 is a much more complicated movement. Just look at the pics and u can see the difference right away. First pic is the 2500c and the second one is the 8500.


----------



## OTX

Richard M. said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> This forum is excellent as I am looking to acquire my first Omega time piece. I was looking to get the Planet Ocean Big Size, model 2208.50.00. I went to the Omega store in NYC and was shown the new model, 232.30.46.21.01.002 and at first glance they looked the same. After an hour of talking to the sales rep and having been shown the differences, which besides the new movment, are all comesmetic I am left wondering which to get.
> 
> Is the new movement worth the price difference? $5900usd for the 2nd gen vs. $4500 for the 1st gen. From looking at the posts I appreciate the technical aspects that were shared. But at the end of the day, is the new movement that much more better. I.E. does the first generation Planet Ocean break down so often it has to be sent in for repairs. Is it minutes, or hours slower/faster then is acceptable? If I dropped the watch(sadly I dropped my Breitling Datora from waist height while going through the airport security check and the chronograph reset button did not work anymore and I had to send the watch in for repairs) does the movement stop working? becomes unreliable?
> 
> Are the cosemetic changes really worth the price difference? If you had to pick between the first gen vs. second gen which would you get?
> 
> Thank you all for your feedback.


Get the the new PO with the 8500. Trust me on this one. The movement is very serious and complicated. It's the kind of movement that everyone respects whether they own a Patek, Rolex or any other watch. It's that good of a movement. I really think the 8500 movement in the PO just made this watch a heavy weight that demands respect from everyone in the watch world. The PO 8500 is a serious watch!!!


----------



## mark.altern

Hi eloburg, I see you start evangelizing the PO8500 before you even got it in hand...:think::-d
On the other hand, I tend to agree with what you said. I think 8500 has great potentials.


----------



## OTX

lol for sure. Although I'm still waiting on mine I did try it on at the Omega boutique at the Galleria in Houston so I know what I am waiting for . I have done hours upon hours of research before I committed. It's those reasons I mentioned above that made me sell my 2500 PO and order the 8500 PO. The real magic happened once I put the 42mm PO on at the boutique. It just oozed quality!. I have an 8 inch wrist and the 42mm PO just clicked with me...so elegant and classy. The PO 8500 is a heavy weight now. I can't wait to get mine. Did you get the 42 or 45?. How are you liking it?.


----------



## SMP89

eloburg, the 8500 really is that much better? huh, i knew it was a more complicated movement, didn't figure its really worth the extra price being such a new movement, at the time i went to go see it. i guess i'll be following the forums and reading the pros and (if any) cons of the 8500. 
thanks for your response.


----------



## OTX

SMP89 said:


> eloburg, the 8500 really is that much better? huh, i knew it was a more complicated movement, didn't figure its really worth the extra price being such a new movement, at the time i went to go see it. i guess i'll be following the forums and reading the pros and (if any) cons of the 8500.
> thanks for your response.


It really is that much better not only compared to the 2500 but one of the best from any brand. Here is an excerpt from a thread about the PO 8500 I read on the Rolex forum. This was posted by a well known Rolex member and owner who was replying to someone who said that the new PO is overpriced. Remember this guys username is the "The GMT Master" and he is a very well known Rolex owner and fan and has a blog also. Here we go:

 Quote:

 Originally Posted by *youlanyazhu*  
_Movement 8500 is great, but $6100 is overpriced._


Is it though? After trying it on for myself yesterday, I honestly believe it's a superior watch to the Sub-C. Cal. 8500 blows anything Rolex, or anyone else short of the ultra-high end brands has to offer out of the water too. It might well be the luxury watch bargain of the century! 
__________________
The Ask An Insider Thread - Go on, ask me a question









I have a watch blog! Please PM me if you'd like to take a look. Now Twittering: @TheGMTMaster


----------



## SMP89

interesting.... i've been looking at 232.32.46.21.01.005 (P.O) or a GMT-master II.  the difference in price is roughly $1k. tough decision. i love both, but isn't that just the problem these days, decisions decisions... good thing to keep in mind that the P.O. has a "superior" movement. thanks for the post.


----------



## OTX

SMP89 said:


> interesting.... i've been looking at 232.32.46.21.01.005 (P.O) or a GMT-master II.  the difference in price is roughly $1k. tough decision. i love both, but isn't that just the problem these days, decisions decisions... good thing to keep in mind that the P.O. has a "superior" movement. thanks for the post.


Don't get me wrong, as a former Rolex owner I can tell you they do make a robust movment but if you compare both movements, the 8500 is way ahead of Rolex in term of technology and finishing. The 8500 is a state of the art movement where as Rolex movements are old. Even if the PO 8500 sold for $7900 which is the retail of the GMT IIc it would still be a much better value so yes the PO is worth it's price and more.


----------



## Dixan

eloburg said:


> Don't get me wrong, as a former Rolex owner I can tell you they do make a robust movment but if you compare both movements, the 8500 is way ahead of Rolex in term of technology and finishing. The 8500 is a state of the art movement where as Rolex movements are old. *Even if the PO 8500 sold for $7900 which is the retail of the GMT IIc it would still be a much better value* so yes the PO is worth it's price and more.


I can't agree with this. At its current MSRP (in the US) of $6,200 USD, and with a street price of as low as $4,340 USD, the 8500 PO is a stellar buy. At $8,000 and above, there are many other very interesting options, and you start to get into the entry levels of the next market segment. The new PO is what it is - an _excellent_ offering in the mid-level market segment, nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe that even the most ardent Omega fans among us would be willing to pay eight or nine thousand dollars for a three-hand steel Planet Ocean.

Another way to state this would be to say that the Sub-C and GMT IIC are, in my opinion, overpriced. If they were each a thousand dollars or so less expensive, the choice between them and a new PO would be much more difficult. Right now, the PO is the better buy compared to the Sub-C, especially since the traditionally large discounts are still available as of this time. It will be interesting to see what happens when these discounts run out, and people are left to pay full price for the PO....


----------



## OTX

Dixan said:


> I can't agree with this. At its current MSRP (in the US) of $6,200 USD, and with a street price of as low as $4,340 USD, the 8500 PO is a stellar buy. At $8,000 and above, there are many other very interesting options, and you start to get into the entry levels of the next market segment. The new PO is what it is - an _excellent_ offering in the mid-level market segment, nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe that even the most ardent Omega fans among us would be willing to pay eight or nine thousand dollars for a three-hand steel Planet Ocean.


I agree with you to some point but I was comparing it specifically to Rolex. My point was that you could pay $7900 for a Rolex GMT IIc then paying the same amount for the PO 8500 should be no problem. I do think many people will pay that kind of money for a 3 hand Omega. Not everyone wants to buy watches from the next level up. I personally could have bought a used JLC, Breguet, GP, Blancpain and many more from the "higher brands" for less than what I paid for the 8500 but I could care less about these watches. I had on offer to buy a Fifty Fathoms for $3900 in new condition but I was not interested. I like the design of the PO so that's what I bought. Also the 8500 movement is a very solid movement and worth every penny and more.


----------



## lvt

I believe the 8500 is superior to the 2500 in many aspects.

However, one should be careful while comparing the 8500 to other movements like the ETA-2892.A2 or Rolex's, they are tried and proven movements for decades.


----------



## Dixan

eloburg said:


> I agree with you to some point but I was comparing it specifically to Rolex. My point was that you could pay $7900 for a Rolex GMT IIc then paying the same amount for the PO 8500 should be no problem. *I do think many people will pay that kind of money for a 3 hand Omega.*


Sorry, I don't.



eloburg said:


> Not everyone wants to buy watches from the next level up. I personally could have bought a used JLC, Breguet, GP, Blancpain and many more from the "higher brands" for less than what I paid for the 8500 but I could care less about these watches. *I had on offer to buy a Fifty Fathoms for $3900 in new condition but I was not interested.* I like the design of the PO so that's what I bought. Also the 8500 movement is a very solid movement and worth every penny and more.


Are you talking about one of the old, relatively unloved, Trilogy models? There's simply zero possibility you could have bought a Fifty Fathoms Sport - in any condition - for that price.


----------



## OTX

Dixan said:


> Sorry, I don't.
> 
> Are you talking about one of the old, relatively unloved, Trilogy models? There's simply zero possibility you could have bought a Fifty Fathoms Sport - in any condition - for that price.


I would buy an Omega for that much. Give me a break. A JLC Master chrono just sold on ebay for $4100 a couple of months ago. Deals can be found on these "higher end" brands all the time. It's just not everyone gives a damn about these brands. You act like if given the chance, everyone will jump to these "higher brands" but the truth is they won't. Now if I found a watch from these brands that I just love madly and must have, I will buy it. I have an uncle who is very very wealthy and I remember going watch shopping with him a few years ago and I showed him all the higher brands and you know what he bought?..A Rolex and an Omega. I'm sure some people wouldn't pay $8000 for an Omega but many will(myself included) and based on Omegas strategy to sell watches in Boutiques only at full MSRP I think they think people will pay it. This is the Blancpain I was talking about and the sad part it took the seller a few months to sell it.


----------



## OTX

lvt said:


> I believe the 8500 is superior to the 2500 in many aspects.
> 
> However, one should be careful while comparing the 8500 to other movements like the ETA-2892.A2 or Rolex's, they are tried and proven movements for decades.


You are right but the 8500 movement has been out since 2007 and so far seems to be a reliable movement with very few problems. That gives me the impression it's a solid movement.


----------



## Dixan

eloburg said:


> I would buy an Omega for that much. Give me a break. A JLC Master chrono just sold on ebay for $4100 a couple of months ago. Deals can be found on these "higher end" brands all the time. It's just not everyone gives a damn about these brands. You act like if given the chance, everyone will jump to these "higher brands" but the truth is they won't. Now if I found a watch from these brands that I just love madly and must have, I will buy it. I have an uncle who is very very wealthy and I remember going watch shopping with him a few years ago and I showed him all the higher brands and you know what he bought?..A Rolex and an Omega. I'm sure some people wouldn't pay $8000 for an Omega but many will(myself included) and based on Omegas strategy to sell watches in Boutiques only at full MSRP I think they think people will pay it. This is the Blancpain I was talking about and the sad part it took the seller a few months to sell it.


Wow, a bit touchy there, are we? Give you a break? I'm certain if you started a poll, and asked everyone here what maximum price would they be willing to pay for a three-hand, 8500 PO, you'll not be seeing many people go beyond five grand or so. It's great that you like your new buy, but let's not get carried away. I'd venture to guess _no one_ (besides you, I guess) would be willing to pay $8,000 or $9,000 for a PO.

I love Omega as much as the next guy (I've owned many, and have worn at least one for a dozen years now), but I do believe sales will slow down noticeably when people are forced to pay full price, especially as another price hike can't be too far off. Over $7,000 USD, including sales tax, out the door for a stainless steel three-hand PO? Sorry, the clear-cut advantage it held in the marketplace is suddenly gone. True, the watch may still sell on its merits, but to a far smaller number of buyers. Raise that price (hypothetically) to $9,000, and you'll see that small pool of buyers dry up. My 8500 Aqua Terra is a fantastic watch at $5,500 USD. Raise the MSRP to $7,500-8,000 and take away discounts? There's no way it will sell well. Sorry.

There's no way a "Master Chronograph" sold for $4,100 USD, used. Sorry, they just don't sell for that little. Where are you coming up with these prices? Master _Compressor_ Chronographs sell in the $7,500 to $8,500 range, used, and the new, much improved MC Chronograph 2 sells for well over ten grand, if you can even find one used. That Blancpain is exactly one of the ones that don't sell well. It's too small by today's standards, and it's ugly, in the eyes of many. The "true" Fifty Fathoms, the one people refer to as "the" Fifty Fathoms, is the FF Sport. A used one will cost you about ten grand more than the price you stated. But, whatever, it's not important to this discussion. You keep comparing the old, unloved, unpopular, and hard to sell, used models from these other companies to the newest and most popular from Omega. Whats the point?


----------



## OTX

Dixan said:


> Wow, a bit touchy there, are we? Give you a break? I'm certain if you started a poll, and asked everyone here at what maximum price would they be willing to pay for a three-hand, 8500 PO, you'll not be seeing many people go beyond five grand or so. It's great that you like your new buy, but let's not get carried away. I'd venture to guess no one (besides you, I guess) would be willing to pay $8,000 or $9,000 for a PO. I love Omega as much as the next guy (I've owned many), but I do believe they will sales will slow down noticeably when people are forced to pay full price, especially as another price hike can't be too far off. Over $7,000 USD, including sales tax, out the door for a stainless steel three-hand PO? Sorry, the advantage it held is suddenly gone. True, the watch may still sell on its merits, but to a far smaller number of buyers. Raise that price (hypothetically) to $9,000, and you'll see that small pool of buyers dry up.
> 
> There's no way a "Master Chronograph" sold for $4,100 USD, used. Sorry, they just don't sell for that little. Where are you coming up with these prices? Master _Compressor_ Chronographs sell in the $7,500 to $8,500 range, used, and the new, much improved MC Chronograph 2 sells for well over ten grand, if you can even find one used. That Blancpain is exactly one of the ones that don't sell well. It's too small by today's standards, and it's ugly, in the eyes of many. The "true" Fifty Fathoms, the one people refer to as "the" Fifty Fathoms, is the FF Sport. A used one will cost you about ten grand more than the price you stated. But, whatever, it's not important to this discussion. You just keep comparing the unwanted, unloved used models from these other companies to the newest and best from Omega. What's the point?


I swear on my grandmas grave that a Master chrono went for $4100 on ebay a couple of months ago. It was a buy it now and in excellent shape. I don't come up with these prices. If you look hard enough you will find them at these prices. You own 2 JLCs so you are trying to tell yourself that they cannot be had for that price. I am sure some models might be worth more but I am telling you they CAN be had for super deals if you keep looking and I have found a bunch over the last month. When Omega increased the prices of their seamaster line over the last few years people said Omega would lose sales but based on the sales of the PO 2500 it proved the opposite. People accepted and paid the new prices. The same will happen with the New PO 8500. People will buy it because it's a solid watch. When I purchased the PO 8500 I had a $6500 budget so I could have bought many other watches. It's just liked the Omega PO 8500 and movement than anything else I saw. Now whether people would pay $9000 for an Omega I'm not sure but if Rolex keep increasing their prices people will always see Omega as the better deal. The problem is when an Omega reaches $9000, Rolex will be at $11000 and the others will raise their prices too. Anyways, thanks for helping me buy the PO 8500 and I apologize about coming across as touchy |>


----------



## OTX

Dixan said:


> Wow, a bit touchy there, are we? Give you a break? I'm certain if you started a poll, and asked everyone here what maximum price would they be willing to pay for a three-hand, 8500 PO, you'll not be seeing many people go beyond five grand or so. It's great that you like your new buy, but let's not get carried away. I'd venture to guess _no one_ (besides you, I guess) would be willing to pay $8,000 or $9,000 for a PO.
> 
> I love Omega as much as the next guy (I've owned many, and have worn at least one for a dozen years now), but I do believe sales will slow down noticeably when people are forced to pay full price, especially as another price hike can't be too far off. Over $7,000 USD, including sales tax, out the door for a stainless steel three-hand PO? Sorry, the clear-cut advantage it held in the marketplace is suddenly gone. True, the watch may still sell on its merits, but to a far smaller number of buyers. Raise that price (hypothetically) to $9,000, and you'll see that small pool of buyers dry up. My 8500 Aqua Terra is a fantastic watch at $5,500 USD. Raise the MSRP to $7,500-8,000 and take away discounts? There's no way it will sell well. Sorry.
> 
> There's no way a "Master Chronograph" sold for $4,100 USD, used. Sorry, they just don't sell for that little. Where are you coming up with these prices? Master _Compressor_ Chronographs sell in the $7,500 to $8,500 range, used, and the new, much improved MC Chronograph 2 sells for well over ten grand, if you can even find one used. That Blancpain is exactly one of the ones that don't sell well. It's too small by today's standards, and it's ugly, in the eyes of many. The "true" Fifty Fathoms, the one people refer to as "the" Fifty Fathoms, is the FF Sport. A used one will cost you about ten grand more than the price you stated. But, whatever, it's not important to this discussion. You keep comparing the old, unloved, unpopular, and hard to sell, used models from these other companies to the newest and most popular from Omega. Whats the point?


I am a major watch flipper and have gone through dozens of watches in the last few years from Rolex, IWC, Omega and many other brands so I am always on the look out for new watches so I am always checking out the sales corner and ebay and that's where I see those prices. I wouldn't be exagerrating if I said for the last few years I have checked the sales corner every day so I see a lot of deals.


----------



## Dixan

eloburg said:


> When Omega increased the prices of their seamaster line over the last few years people said Omega would lose sales but based on the sales of the PO 2500 it proved the opposite. People accepted and paid the new prices.


I've been very familiar with the market for Omegas for quite a while now. Planet Oceans were selling for $2,300, brand new, when I joined this forum. Yes, people have been okay with paying even up to $3,100, street price, for a brand new 2500D PO. Had the 2500 PO sold for out-the-door prices of $5,100 or more, however, the number sold would've been far, far less. It's more that Omegas are priced well, and Rolexes are over priced. I don't think a 2500 PO would have been worth a $5,100 street price. And I don't think the 8500 PO is worth an out-the-door price of more than $7,000. In my view, that's just too much for a three hand Omega diver's watch.



eloburg said:


> The same will happen with the New PO 8500. People will buy it because it's a solid watch. When I purchased the PO 8500 I had a $6500 budget so I could have bought many other watches. It's just liked the Omega PO 8500 and movement than anything else I saw. Now whether people would pay $9000 for an Omega I'm not sure but if Rolex keep increasing their prices people will always see Omega as the better deal. The problem is when an Omega reaches $9000, Rolex will be at $11000 and the others will raise their prices too. Anyways, thanks for helping me buy the PO 8500 and I apologize about coming across as touchy |>


For argument's sake, let's use the current buyer pool, with the 8500 PO selling at discounted prices as low as $4,340, as a basis for comparison. It's my belief that when the discounts dry up, and people are made to pay the full $6,200 (or whatever the next post price-hike price will be), you'll see maybe a third to a half of potential buyers looking elsewhere. Raise that price past $7,500, and it's not going to sell well at all. Raise it to $9,000 and practically no one will be buying. (Also, though we've seen dramatic price increases in the past few years, it's my belief that prices, for the whole industry, cannot continue to jump by such large amounts, indefinitely. I don't believe we'll be seeing $11k Sub-Cs, and $9,000 POs anytime soon. And if we do, the whole watch industry will be in trouble.)

We know the new PO is a tremendous watch, but I believe it will still need a (however slight) price advantage over the Sub-C to be successful. And that's not at all because it's a lesser watch, which we know it's not. What you're saying, the point you've been trying to make, has been the topic of discussion here for about as long as the forum has been up. Yes, "Omegas are a relative bargain!" Yes, "They could sell them for more!" In today's marketplace, however, the maximum price point for a new PO (at street prices) is still in the five thousand dollar range, in my opinion.



eloburg said:


> I swear .on my grandmas grave that a Master chrono went for $4100 on ebay a couple of months ago. It was a buy it now and in excellent shape. I don't come up with these prices. If you look hard enough you will find them at these prices. You own 2 JLCs so you are trying to tell yourself that they cannot be had for that price. I am sure some models might be worth more but I am telling you they CAN be had for super deals if you keep looking and I have found a bunch over the last month.


Don't use your late grandma to emphasize a point in a discussion on the Internet about watches, man. C'mon!

As far as that price for that watch, sorry, but that's just not possible. And it has nothing to do with how I feel about my watches, lol. I know the exact values of many of these watches, simply because I studied them in detail - make that obsessively - for the past several months. I bought one of my JLCs used and one brand new, so I am very clear about the current prices, new or used, and especially for the more sought after models.

It's not clear from what you've written, but my guess is you might mean either the Master Chronograph from the Master Control series, which is a dressier type watch, or the Master Compressor Chronograph. The former is highly sought after, and never sells for below about $6,200 USD, used. Sorry, that's just what the sell for - just like used Speedy Pros and used 2500 POs currently sell in the mid to high two thousand range. Your example would be like a LNIB 2500 PO selling for $1,400, today, in the current market. The MC Chronograph, which I already described in the last post, costs more than the Master Control Chronograph, so there's no way one sold for $4,100 either.

I don't actually care that much - it's just irksome to hear such inaccuracies because I happen to have researched just about every single example sold in the last several months, of many of these models.


----------



## OTX

Dixan said:


> I've been very familiar with the market for Omegas for quite a while now. Planet Oceans were selling for $2,300, brand new, when I joined this forum. Yes, people have been okay with paying even up to $3,100, street price, for a brand new 2500D PO. Had the 2500 PO sold for out-the-door prices of $5,100 or more, however, the number sold would've been far, far less. It's more that Omegas are priced well, and Rolexes are over priced. I don't think a 2500 PO would have been worth a $5,100 street price. And I don't think the 8500 PO is worth an out-the-door price of more than $7,000. In my view, that's just too much for a three hand Omega diver's watch.
> 
> For argument's sake, let's use the current buyer pool, with the 8500 PO selling at discounted prices as low as $4,340, as a basis for comparison. It's my belief that when the discounts dry up, and people are made to pay the full $6,200 (or whatever the next post price-hike price will be), you'll see maybe a third to a half of potential buyers looking elsewhere. Raise that price past $7,500, and it's not going to sell well at all. Raise it to $9,000 and practically no one will be buying. (Also, though we've seen dramatic price increases in the past few years, it's my belief that prices, for the whole industry, cannot continue to jump by such large amounts, indefinitely. I don't believe we'll be seeing $11k Sub-Cs, and $9,000 POs anytime soon. And if we do, the whole watch industry will be in trouble.)
> 
> We know the new PO is a tremendous watch, but I believe it will still need a (however slight) price advantage over the Sub-C to be successful. And that's not at all because it's a lesser watch, which we know it's not. What you're saying, the point you've been trying to make, has been the topic of discussion here for about as long as the forum has been up. Yes, "Omegas are a relative bargain!" Yes, "They could sell them for more!" In today's marketplace, however, the maximum price point for a new PO (at street prices) is still in the five thousand dollar range, in my opinion.
> 
> Don't use your late grandma to emphasize a point in a discussion on the Internet about watches, man. C'mon!
> 
> As far as that price for that watch, sorry, but that's just not possible. And it has nothing to do with how I feel about my watches, lol. I know the exact values of many of these watches, simply because I studied them in detail - make that obsessively - for the past several months. I bought one of my JLCs used and one brand new, so I am very clear about the current prices, new or used, and especially for the more sought after models.
> 
> It's not clear from what you've written, but my guess is you might mean either the Master Chronograph from the Master Control series, which is a dressier type watch, or the Master Compressor Chronograph. The former is highly sought after, and never sells for below about $6,200 USD, used. Sorry, that's just what the sell for - just like used Speedy Pros and used 2500 POs currently sell in the mid to high two thousand range. Your example would be like a LNIB 2500 PO selling for $1,400, today, in the current market. The MC Chronograph, which I already described in the last post, costs more than the Master Control Chronograph, so there's no way one sold for $4,100 either.
> 
> I don't actually care that much - it's just irksome to hear such inaccuracies because I happen to have researched just about every single example sold in the last several months, of many of these models.


This is the watch that sold for $4100. It's up to you to believe it or not but it was listed by a private seller as a buy it now and was sold for $4100. I'm sure that model goes for more but my point was you can get deals on them every now and then. It was in excellent shape with all the boxes and papers. Inaccuracies according to you!. I have been buying watches for a very very long time so I know what I am talking about. All I am going to say I have seen many super deals on JLC, Breguet and many other "higher brands". Anyways, it's all good


----------



## Dixan

eloburg said:


> This is the watch that sold for $4100. It's up to you to believe it or not but it was listed by a private seller as a buy it now and was sold for $4100. I'm sure that model goes for more but my point was you can get deals on them every now and then. It was in excellent shape with all the boxes and papers. Inaccuracies according to you!. I have been buying watches for a very very long time so I know what I am talking about. All I am going to say I have seen many super deals on JLC, Breguet and many other "higher brands". Anyways, it's all good


Well, it's possible that one slipped by unnoticed. Though I hadn't seriously considered the MC Chrono 1, I would've jumped on a deal like that, if even to resell it, as those usually sell for $7,500 to $8,500, used. I love the MC Chrono 2, though!


----------



## OTX

Dixan said:


> Well, it's possible that one slipped by unnoticed. Though I hadn't seriously considered the MC Chrono 1, I would've jumped on a deal like that, if even to resell it, as those usually sell for $7,500 to $8,500, used. I love the MC Chrono 2, though!


I wish I did. I thought about buying it but when I came back to it the next day it was sold. It would have been nice to make a big profit on it


----------



## OTX

Dixan said:


> Well, it's possible that one slipped by unnoticed. Though I hadn't seriously considered the MC Chrono 1, I would've jumped on a deal like that, if even to resell it, as those usually sell for $7,500 to $8,500, used. I love the MC Chrono 2, though!


$4340?!. Not even the FD sells them for that low. Please PM me the name of the dealer that sells them for that low as I might cancel my current order and buy it from this dealer. Is he an Omega AD?. I agree these discounts will be very short lived and my guess is within this year no one will be able to get them anywhere(boutiques or independent ADs) for less than the $6200 or whatever their new price will become. They are cutting ADs right and left as we are speaking.


----------



## lvt

eloburg said:


> You are right but the 8500 movement has been out since 2007 and so far seems to be a reliable movement with very few problems. That gives me the impression it's a solid movement.


That's also what I think, given that the same type of escapement is used on the new 9300 caliber with higher beat-rate, the 8500 should perform beautilfully at the actual (moderate) beat-rate.

While it's true that the 8500 already exists for a while, but the number of units made per year is very low compared to ETA or Rolex's workhorse movements, let alone ETA's 28xx which count by millions per year, Rolex makes 2,000 watches per day, Omega makes about 400 watches (majority 2500 Co-ax) per day (as by 2006).


----------



## SMP89

speaking about price hikes, is it true that "majority" of prices on watches are based off of the swiss franc? i bought my SMP on August 18, 2011, i was told the price increase was going to hike up another $400 on Sept. 1st? sure enough, i walk into the boutique after sept. 1st. and the price increased. of course, i purchased this from an Omega boutique, not an AD.


----------



## M4tt

> While it's true that the 8500 already exists for a while, but the number of units made per year is very low compared to ETA or Rolex's workhorse movements, let alone ETA's 28xx which count by millions per year, Rolex makes *2,000* watches per day, Omega makes about *400 *watches (majority 2500 Co-ax) per day (as by 2006).


That's a pretty clear claim: In 2006 Rolex made 2000 X 365 = *730,000* watches while Omega made 400 X 365 *146,000*. Nice clear numbers. Fortunately there is another source of data beyond LVTs: the returns of COSC. Bizarrely, these seem to diverge from LVT's rather precise figures for 2006. According to the federation of the Swiss watch industry, the numbers of Rolex watches which passed COSC was *710,000* - that's pretty well in line with LVT's assertion, but of course doesn't allow for non COSC watches made by Rolex. However, the number of Omega watches that passed COSC are significantly higher: *257,000*. However, this figure is a trifle misleading as Omega produce far more non COSC watches than Rolex. In short, rather than making a mere 400 watches a day, Omega passed over *700 *a day through COSC and actually made far more: all quartz, Speedmasters and so on.

And here's my source:

Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry FH - NEWS PAGE

I look forward to seeing LVT's source...


----------



## Zidane

I doubt you'll see any sources, Matt. Remember? He read it..."somewhere".


----------



## lvt

M4tt said:


> I look forward to seeing LVT's source...












M4tt, you confused *watches* with *movements*.

Your source only says about the number of movements passing COST tests, not the number of watches that Omega made that year.


----------



## GaryF

They were for a while but the CHF was eventually pegged to the Euro because Swiss exports were being massacred.



SMP89 said:


> speaking about price hikes, is it true that "majority" of prices on watches are based off of the swiss franc?


----------



## Richard M.

Greetings All,

Thanks GTTIME & SMP89 and everyone else that gave me feed back! I ended up getting the PO 1st Gen with the 2500 movement. Ultimately the price was the deciding factor, $3550 vs. $4700. Aesthetically I liked the dial on the 2nd gen with the 8500 movement slightly better. The raised numbers, the new markers, the two colored illumination. But I did like the sea horse and the thinner profile on the 1st gen as well. Again ultimately the price swayed me towards the 1st gen. Plus now I have an excuse to get a 2nd gen or 3rd (if and when it comes out).

I'm not going to post any pictures unless you guys want to see it, as I’m sure everyone is familiar with it. The HE crown does have HE on it, the red dot is on the back at the 6 o'clock position, the serial is on the back side by the 7 o'clock position/lug, seahorse with omega symbol under it, and the engraved anti counter fit laser mark is there! I never doubted the watch was going to be legit. My concern was always with the warranty.

So with regards to the warranty, the warranty card is stamped but I did not get a bill of sale, as my friend gave me this whole bs about sales tax and this and that. Do I 100% need a bill of sale, or will the stamped warranty card be enough to honor the 3 year warranty? Has anyone ever had to get their PO repaired within the first 3 years? I had a Tag Heuer Monaco (the version with the plexi glass) and had to send it in for repairs 3xs during my first year with it. I ended up selling that and getting a pre owned Breitling Navitimer Montbrillant Datora which I had to have repaired 3xs now. But the repairs out of pocket weren't that expensive. Once the watch stopped running and I sent it to Breitling and it only cost 150 + s/h and the second time the chronograph was stuck and they repaired under the 1 year warranty that was given after the initial repair. And the third time I took it to the Breitling authorized repair center on 42 for a push button that fell off and that only cost $60. Should I make a big stink about the sales receipt or can I expect to make it 3 years without the need for repairs (granted I dont drop it)?

On a final note, this watch weights more than my Breitling. Has anyone changed out the strap for something in leather or nylon? If so where did you get it.

Thanks again to everyone.


----------



## ddatta

lvt said:


> M4tt, you confused *watches* with *movements*.
> 
> Your source only says about the number of movements passing COST tests, not the number of watches that Omega made that year.


LVT, you have confused me again.

From a source that reads

"*the brand made some 150,000 Co-Axial OMEGA watches in 2006*"

you derived

"*Omega makes about 400 watches (majority 2500 Co-ax) per day (as by 2006)*".

Do you see a problem here?


----------



## tonyteetime

Richard,
As far as honoring the warranty , I would say that the stamp dated warranty card from your AD is good enough. It 's very likely that the AD has registered your watch number (serial) as being sold on said date. Omega can always trace back to the AD and confirm.


----------



## hidden by leaves

lvt said:


> M4tt, you confused *watches* with *movements*.
> 
> Your source only says about the number of movements passing COST tests, not the number of watches that Omega made that year.


Well no matter what you say or prove lvt, I say Omega is the best! And I have irrefutable evidence. Here is my source:


----------



## lvt

hidden by leaves said:


> Well no matter what you say or prove lvt, I say Omega is the best! And I have irrefutable evidence. Here is my source:


Not sure if Chuck Yeager agrees with you )









Welcome To RolexMagazine.com...Home Of Jake's Rolex World Magazine..Optimized for iPad and iPhone: Rolex Super Coolness: Chuck Yeager An Amazing Career...


----------



## lvt

ddatta said:


> LVT, you have confused me again.
> 
> From a source that reads
> 
> "*the brand made some 150,000 Co-Axial OMEGA watches in 2006*"
> 
> you derived
> 
> "*Omega makes about 400 watches (majority 2500 Co-ax) per day (as by 2006)*".
> 
> Do you see a problem here?


No, I don't, could you please elaborate ?


----------



## ddatta

lvt said:


> No, I don't, could you please elaborate ?


Gladly -

Source:
150,000 Coaxial OMEGAs - means... there were so many Co-Axial OMEGAs manufactured... All others would be in addition to this number. Therefore the total number of watches manufactured by OMEGA would be a substantially higher figure.

Your version:
400 watches (majority 2500 Co-ax) per day. Here the Co-ax is a lesser part. Meaning that the total is 400 watches per day or approx 150,000 TOTAL!!

Do you see a problem with your contention NOW??


----------



## SMP89

Richard M. said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> Thanks GTTIME & SMP89 and everyone else that gave me feed back! I ended up getting the PO 1st Gen with the 2500 movement. Ultimately the price was the deciding factor, $3550 vs. $4700. Aesthetically I liked the dial on the 2nd gen with the 8500 movement slightly better. The raised numbers, the new markers, the two colored illumination. But I did like the sea horse and the thinner profile on the 1st gen as well. Again ultimately the price swayed me towards the 1st gen. Plus now I have an excuse to get a 2nd gen or 3rd (if and when it comes out).
> 
> I'm not going to post any pictures unless you guys want to see it, as I'm sure everyone is familiar with it. The HE crown does have HE on it, the red dot is on the back at the 6 o'clock position, the serial is on the back side by the 7 o'clock position/lug, seahorse with omega symbol under it, and the engraved anti counter fit laser mark is there! I never doubted the watch was going to be legit. My concern was always with the warranty.
> 
> So with regards to the warranty, the warranty card is stamped but I did not get a bill of sale, as my friend gave me this whole bs about sales tax and this and that. Do I 100% need a bill of sale, or will the stamped warranty card be enough to honor the 3 year warranty? Has anyone ever had to get their PO repaired within the first 3 years? I had a Tag Heuer Monaco (the version with the plexi glass) and had to send it in for repairs 3xs during my first year with it. I ended up selling that and getting a pre owned Breitling Navitimer Montbrillant Datora which I had to have repaired 3xs now. But the repairs out of pocket weren't that expensive. Once the watch stopped running and I sent it to Breitling and it only cost 150 + s/h and the second time the chronograph was stuck and they repaired under the 1 year warranty that was given after the initial repair. And the third time I took it to the Breitling authorized repair center on 42 for a push button that fell off and that only cost $60. Should I make a big stink about the sales receipt or can I expect to make it 3 years without the need for repairs (granted I dont drop it)?
> 
> On a final note, this watch weights more than my Breitling. Has anyone changed out the strap for something in leather or nylon? If so where did you get it.
> 
> Thanks again to everyone.


just like "tonyteetime" said. as long as you have the warranty dated card, you're all set.

you should have received 3 of these cards with your watch. 
1. international warranty card
2. Pictograms
3.Chronometer Certificate










i'm sure if you bring the watch in and one of the reps is kind enough, they can look up your watch's serial number and confirm that it is authentic. But bring that card with you.


----------



## lvt

ddatta said:


> Gladly -
> 
> Source:
> 150,000 Coaxial OMEGAs - means... there were so many Co-Axial OMEGAs manufactured... All others would be in addition to this number. Therefore the total number of watches manufactured by OMEGA would be a substantially higher figure.
> 
> Your version:
> 400 watches (majority 2500 Co-ax) per day. Here the Co-ax is a lesser part. Meaning that the total is 400 watches per day or approx 150,000 TOTAL!!
> 
> Do you see a problem with your contention NOW??


I don't see anything wrong, we actually talk about Omega's Co-axial watches exclusively.

It seems that you didn't even read the thread's title.


----------



## ddatta

lvt said:


> I don't see anything wrong, we actually talk about Omega's Co-axial watches exclusively.
> 
> It seems that you didn't even read the thread's title.


I am reading your statement :

"Omega makes about 400 watches (majority 2500 Co-ax) per day (as by 2006)".

The figure quoted by you isn't about Co-Axial exclusively. It is not even supported by the evidence that you provide.


----------



## lvt

ddatta said:


> I am reading your statement :
> 
> "Omega makes about 400 watches (majority 2500 Co-ax) per day (as by 2006)".
> 
> The figure quoted by you isn't about Co-Axial exclusively. It is not even supported by the evidence that you provide.


The figure is about Co-axial, what else do you want it to be ?


----------



## ddatta

lvt said:


> The figure is about Co-axial, what else do you want it to be ?


Thats exactly the point. You speak of the figure as if it was about all Omega watches.


----------



## lvt

ddatta said:


> Thats exactly the point. You speak of the figure as if it was about all Omega watches.


I ignore how you managed to see it wrong.

The figure covers the 2500 & 8500, the 2500 was the "workhorse" caliber at the time, there are a few of 8500 movements made at the same time sothat they can be certified chronometer and launched in 2007 in the Hour Vision line.


----------



## ddatta

lvt said:


> I ignore how you managed to see it wrong.
> 
> The figure covers the 2500 & 8500, the 2500 was the "workhorse" caliber at the time, there are a few of 8500 movements made at the same time sothat they can be certified chronometer and launched in 2007 in the Hour Vision line.


No, my friend, the figure does not include the 8500, since it refers to 2006 production and the 8500 came out the next year. So the 2006 figure of production cannot possibly include the 8500.


----------



## lvt

ddatta said:


> No, my friend, the figure does not include the 8500, since it refers to 2006 production and the 8500 came out the next year. So the 2006 figure of production cannot possibly include the 8500.


Yes we all know that the 8500 project is approved in 2000 and officially launched in 2007, it's reported that a number of early 8500 watches are made in 2006 so they could be available in 2007 as some process require additional time (COSC cert, publicity campaigns, packaging material... and the watch's production itself).

Anyway you are free to produce your own source to prove that a 2007 watch has the movement, case, crsytal, braclet / strap... and everything else compulsorily made in 2007 and not one day earlier. From the time you send a naked movement for COSC tests until you can put it in a watch case to complete the watch it might take several months.

Say, do you always thinks the bread you eat today came from this year's harvest and not the previous ones ?


----------



## fastward

heavyduty said:


> It will not happen. Ever.





heavyduty said:


> I would bet my watch collection on it.
> Would you bet your watches on the opposite?






Never say never.

Do you need Ryan's address? He would love to hear from you. ;-)

OMEGA Watches: Seamaster Aqua Terra Chronometer - Steel on steel - 231.10.42.21.06.001


----------



## toxicavenger

fastward said:


> Never say never.
> 
> Do you need Ryan's address? He would love to hear from you. ;-)
> 
> OMEGA Watches: Seamaster Aqua Terra Chronometer - Steel on steel - 231.10.42.21.06.001


It was said on a forum so you know it wasn't a REAL statement.:rodekaart


----------



## www.satriaman.sm

I have 2531.80 & 2220.80, cal 1120 more accurate than 2500, the hands second moving on 2500 a bit rough & 1120 very smooth

Sent from my SM-T331 using Tapatalk


----------



## gk68

Almost 2 years since the last post about the Omega 2500.
Has there been some sort of resolution to the coaxial friction reduction escapement advantage. Any recommendations for alternatives? Much appreciated.
Gk68


----------



## Icycas

I think the see through caseback is an amazing selling point. With the unique geneva-ish stripes


----------



## douglasf13

gk68 said:


> Almost 2 years since the last post about the Omega 2500.
> Has there been some sort of resolution to the coaxial friction reduction escapement advantage. Any recommendations for alternatives? Much appreciated.
> Gk68


IIRC, Archer said Omega has a newly coated part and a revised oiling routine at service, so maybe it primarily worked? I've been wearing a 2500b for 4 years without issue, and I'm not even exactly sure when it was last serviced, FWIW.


----------



## DocJekl

douglasf13 said:


> IIRC, Archer said Omega has a newly coated part and a revised oiling routine at service, so maybe it primarily worked? I've been wearing a 2500b for 4 years without issue, and I'm not even exactly sure when it was last serviced, FWIW.


He also says some like, "there was a reason that Omega went to a 3-level co-axial escapement in the 2500D (and newer) instead of sticking with the older 2-level from the 2500C and older."

The issues of sticky deposits on the 2-level co-ax intermediate escape wheel are not completely resolved by the new wheel and oiling protocol, although that does extend the service interval with the 2-level movement to be closer to the full 5 years that we users expect.

As far as whether the co-axial escapement offers a real advantage over the Swiss lever escapement, that is still up in the air.


----------



## TSC

My 2500C is pretty much spot on most of the time and it's now 9 years old, and the 8500 is a -2 per day, and that's 1 year old, so I personally feel it also has a lot to do with luck of the draw as to which watch you end up taking home with you. That's not scientific though. Just my opinion.


----------



## GTTIME

TSC said:


> My 2500C is pretty much spot on most of the time and it's now 9 years old, and the 8500 is a -2 per day, and that's 1 year old, so I personally feel it also has a lot to do with luck of the draw as to which watch you end up taking home with you. That's not scientific though. Just my opinion.


My first 2500c is 8 years old and going strong and is the most accurate still of all of my Omegas.

My second 2500c had the stoppage after 3 years and Omega fixed it under warranty.

I'll never sell my 2500c Planet Oceans.


----------



## douglasf13

DocJekl said:


> He also says some like, "there was a reason that Omega went to a 3-level co-axial escapement in the 2500D (and newer) instead of sticking with the older 2-level from the 2500C and older."
> 
> The issues of sticky deposits on the 2-level co-ax intermediate escape wheel are not completely resolved by the new wheel and oiling protocol, although that does extend the service interval with the 2-level movement to be closer to the full 5 years that we users expect.
> 
> As far as whether the co-axial escapement offers a real advantage over the Swiss lever escapement, that is still up in the air.


Well, sure, the 3-level is an improvement, but I don't think any of us have solid numbers on the service interval differences at this point. For me, I prefer my 2500b simply because it's fun to have the faster beat rate, and it's been over 5 years since it was serviced.


----------



## fskywalker

2500D is still the latest version, being installed on the new SMPc's. Imagine a 8XXX would at certain point replace the 2500 completely, but so far good enough for Omega so good enough for me too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## douglasf13

fskywalker said:


> 2500D is still the latest version, being installed on the new SMPc's. Imagine a 8XXX would at certain point replace the 2500 completely, but so far good enough for Omega so good enough for me too!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I think the main reason is the 1.5mm difference in movement thickness, although I believe some more recent 8XXX movements have been a little thinner than previous versions.


----------



## fskywalker

douglasf13 said:


> I think the main reason is the 1.5mm difference in movement thickness, although I believe some more recent 8XXX movements have been a little thinner than previous versions.


Yes; 8800 movement PO is a tad slimmer (14.16 mm) versus the 2500 movement PO (14.20 mm)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## douglasf13

fskywalker said:


> Yes; 8800 movement PO is a tad slimmer (14.16 mm) versus the 2500 movement PO (14.20 mm)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Great. Now that just need to get over the "wrist presence" thing and start making the cases a little slimmer!


----------



## TSC

douglasf13 said:


> Great. Now that just need to get over the "wrist presence" thing and start making the cases a little slimmer!


Hmmmm, I won't hold my breath..


----------



## Toothbras

TSC said:


> Hmmmm, I won't hold my breath..


Sadly I won't either. Until people refuse to buy them because they're too thick I doubt anything will change


----------



## number 15

I am refusing so at least there is 1. I love the way the SM300 MC looks but at 15mm thick I have taken a pass.


Toothbras said:


> Sadly I won't either. Until people refuse to buy them because they're too thick I doubt anything will change


----------



## douglasf13

number 15 said:


> I am refusing so at least there is 1. I love the way the SM300 MC looks but at 15mm thick I have taken a pass.


Yeah, there's no reason any of the 3-hand watches should be as thick or thicker than the Moonwatch.


----------

