# Omega 3313 Movement : Good/Bad ? Opinions



## Hurst

I am Looking at a PO with the Caliber 3313. I know it does not compare to the new 9300 but have heard that I would be better off with the Caliber 1164 than the cal3313. What is everyone experience with the PO with the 3313 ? So yea or na on the 3313


----------



## Cal8500

There are plenty of threads regarding the 3313 movement here. I was thinking of getting a Speedy Broad Arrow with that movement until I read so many negative things about it. Some have good things to say about it, but I wasn't willing to take the chance.


----------



## Rogi

I'm not sure whether a PO exists with a 3313, your talking about the chrono right? :S... then no I wouldn't get it, too many negatives to out weight a positive, which in the end if its breaks, will most likely be replaced with another movement, or a dif. caliber unit.

Plus anyway its not that much diffrence in saving for a 9300.


----------



## Undersköterskan

The first generation PO Chrono came with the 3313 caliber. In my opinion, this is a truly wonderful chonograph caliber and it's in an entirely different league than the more basic caliber 1164 (based on the ETA 7750). The 3313 comes with pretty much everything you could possibly want in terms of technology; it has state-of-the-art vertical coupling, a column wheel, a free sprung balance and a co-axial escapement (two levels in 3313A/B and three levels in 3313C) among other things. It's a highly cultivated caliber and a feast for the eye when it comes to the esthetics. It had issues in the past though, mostly regarding the 3313A during the first few years of production concerning the chronograph reset function. The 3313B is an improved variant and is safe to buy (that's not to say that all of the 3313A's should be rejected; many of them have performed excellent since day one).

Here's my Speedy Broad Arrow 1957 with the 3313 caliber.

Regards
Undersköterskan


----------



## Archer

The 3313 is based on an F. Piguet calibre, and as noted is a column wheel movement with vertical clutch. It is a thinner and much more sophisticated movement that the 7750 based Cal. 1164.

Because it's thinner, there are some compromises, but I don't think these are significant.

The only "advantage" of the Cal. 1164 based watches is that 7750's are very common, so parts are readily available, and there are many watchmakers who can service them. The Cal. 3313 (and the related non co-axial calibres like the Cal. 3301A I have in the shop right now) are watches that not every watchmaker wants to tackle.

I am certainly a big fan of the ETA 7750 - it is robust, accurate, and quite easy to service. Having said that if you want something a bit more special, the 3313 is it.

Cheers, Al


----------



## boywondergq1

Personally I would stay away from it. But that is just me.


----------



## [email protected]

boywondergq1 said:


> Personally I would stay away from it. But that is just me.


any particular reason why?


----------



## RogerP

I've owned a couple - never a problem and no regrets. I'd rather have that one any day than a 7750. I would hope than any problems they may have had when these movements were introduced (a good long while ago now) would have been worked out by now.


----------



## NoleenELT

Undersköterskan said:


> The first generation PO Chrono came with the 3313 caliber. In my opinion, this is a truly wonderful chonograph caliber and it's in an entirely different league than the more basic caliber 1164 (based on the ETA 7750). The 3313 comes with pretty much everything you could possibly want in terms of technology; it has state-of-the-art vertical coupling, a column wheel, a free sprung balance and a co-axial escapement (two levels in 3313A/B and three levels in 3313C) among other things. It's a highly cultivated caliber and a feast for the eye when it comes to the esthetics. It had issues in the past though, mostly regarding the 3313A during the first few years of production concerning the chronograph reset function. The 3313B is an improved variant and is safe to buy (that's not to say that all of the 3313A's should be rejected; many of them have performed excellent since day one).
> 
> Here's my Speedy Broad Arrow 1957 with the 3313 caliber.
> 
> Regards
> Undersköterskan


I agree with everything said here. I had the same fears as the OP, but I did not want a run of the mill, off the shelf 7750-based movement. The Omega watches this this movement are a great value IMO, especially used. It's a special movement that (AFAIK) is not used in any other watches. Also, the chronograph actuation is extremely nice.

I have a Planet Ocean with this movement. I got mine as a gift from my wife used, and I've had it for almost a year. It's typically accurate within 1-2 seconds, and I've had zero problems with it (knock on wood). Also, all of the problem threads that I found when I was searching were for years ago. I have a theory that all of the "bad apples" have been repaired by now.

If you do some searching, there is a lot of good information about this topic, and the difference of the various "A, B, C" movements.


----------



## NoleenELT

Rogi said:


> I'm not sure whether a PO exists with a 3313, your talking about the chrono right? :S... then no I wouldn't get it, too many negatives to out weight a positive, which in the end if its breaks, will most likely be replaced with another movement, or a dif. caliber unit.
> 
> Plus anyway its not that much diffrence in saving for a 9300.


I disagree with everything said here.

-Of course a PO exists with this movement.
-Any qualified watchmaker would repair the 3313 in the unlikely event that it breaks.
-There is over a $1k difference from the 3313->9300. I don't consider that small. The difference is even greater when looking at used watches.


----------



## mondodec

While the 3313 has all the fruit, it is still not regarded as robust.

As I've done before, I would point you to a pic from the Omega service manual of the intermediate driving wheels. As you can see they are rivetted. The service bulletin recommends literally smothering these wheels with lubricant because of their propensity to fail.

I dont care what anyone says, a high-end chronograph should not have such shoddy construction.....IMO


----------



## Rogi

NoleenELT said:


> I disagree with everything said here.
> 
> -Of course a PO exists with this movement.
> -Any qualified watchmaker would repair the 3313 in the unlikely event that it breaks.
> -There is over a $1k difference from the 3313->9300. I don't consider that small. The difference is even greater when looking at used watches.


I see your point, please re-read my post because I think you've missed the point on a couple things.
-Of course a PO exists with this movement.
"I'm not sure whether a PO exists with a 3313, your talking about the *chrono* right? :S"

I couldn't recal off the top of my head what the chrono PO had previously, thats why I asked  the 3313 is more associated with Speedys anyway 

-Any qualified watchmaker would repair the 3313 in the unlikely event that it breaks
Yes any qualified watchmaker could repair almost anything in the event that it breaks, would it be affordable? Its more expensive than the generic 7750 additions (no I'm not saying the PO had a 7750 so you people don't misunderstand that) etc the rest I'll leave the answer to the OP since he was asking for a opinion on the matter. Which kinda of leads me to your last answer.
-There is over a $1k difference from the 3313->9300. I don't consider that small. The difference is even greater when looking at used watches
Ah yes, what is the diffrence in service costs? The 9300 will go down if you have a "qualified watchmaker" since they'll make a lot of the movement in question and lots of parts to back it up, while the 3313s will go up in service costs(less generic parts, more hard to find stuff in the future, who knows...?)

So in the end you might "save" with buying the 3313, until you need to head down to service it. If your looking for something more unique than the run of the mill mass produced stuff. I guess this is a bit better as others have stated, and if you want to stand out from the crowd, yes the 3313 is definatley that.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on some points


----------



## 4counters

I would listen to Archer, he know's a lot more about these things than most on here.

Personally, I've read a lot more horror stories about the 2500 movement than the 3313.


----------



## NoleenELT

mondodec said:


> While the 3313 has all the fruit, it is still not regarded as robust.
> 
> As I've done before, I would point you to a pic from the Omega service manual of the intermediate driving wheels. As you can see they are rivetted. The service bulletin recommends literally smothering these wheels with lubricant because of their propensity to fail.
> 
> I dont care what anyone says, a high-end chronograph should not have such shoddy construction.....IMO
> 
> View attachment 846297


Every time that the 3313 gets mentioned, this photo is posted. I've never heard an actual story of this part of the watch actually failing or having a problem. Not saying that it's never happened, but this is not where most of the failures have seemed to occur.


----------



## NoleenELT

Rogi said:


> I see your point, please re-read my post because I think you've missed the point on a couple things.
> -Of course a PO exists with this movement.
> "I'm not sure whether a PO exists with a 3313, your talking about the *chrono* right? :S"
> 
> I couldn't recal off the top of my head what the chrono PO had previously, thats why I asked  the 3313 is more associated with Speedys anyway
> 
> -Any qualified watchmaker would repair the 3313 in the unlikely event that it breaks
> Yes any qualified watchmaker could repair almost anything in the event that it breaks, would it be affordable? Its more expensive than the generic 7750 additions (no I'm not saying the PO had a 7750 so you people don't misunderstand that) etc the rest I'll leave the answer to the OP since he was asking for a opinion on the matter. Which kinda of leads me to your last answer.
> -There is over a $1k difference from the 3313->9300. I don't consider that small. The difference is even greater when looking at used watches
> Ah yes, what is the diffrence in service costs? The 9300 will go down if you have a "qualified watchmaker" since they'll make a lot of the movement in question and lots of parts to back it up, while the 3313s will go up in service costs(less generic parts, more hard to find stuff in the future, who knows...?)
> 
> So in the end you might "save" with buying the 3313, until you need to head down to service it. If your looking for something more unique than the run of the mill mass produced stuff. I guess this is a bit better as others have stated, and if you want to stand out from the crowd, yes the 3313 is definatley that.
> 
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on some points


I don't think that I've missed the point on anything. I doubt that any watch maker would swap in a different movement (if that's even possible) in the event of a failure as you suggested. I know that mine would not do this, and I also know that mine said that he would have no problems servicing or getting parts for this movement. I also doubt that Omega will stop making parts for it any time soon.

Also, I'd be willing to wager that the 9300 would be *MORE *expensive to repair or service compared to a 3313. The question of reliability between the two will only be told with time. The 9300 is still quite a new movement, but I'd hate to see what the silicone parts would cost to replace on the watch, not to mention two mainspring barrels, etc.

I'm not bashing the 9300 in any way. It's a much nicer and more advanced movement than the 3313, and seems to be more robust. It's just much more expensive. I couldn't afford the 9300, but I think that the 3313 is an extremely nice alternative, and I chose not to avoid it just because a few people on a forum had problems with their early models. I'm giving the same advice to the OP.

Also, the abbreviation of "you are" is "you're."


----------



## auspuffturbolader

Google the technical guide for the Omega 8500 movement. Under barrel bridge lubrication the same style riveted gear is shown. Maybe the 8500 needs to be avoided as well.


----------



## Hurst

The reason I ask this is .... The new PO with the 9300 just isn't in my budget. I wish it was !! I have found a used PO gen1 with the 3313 or I can get a brand new SM 300m chrono diver. I have read on other forums were people have said the 3313 is not worth the extra money over the 1164 My biggest problem with the 300m chrono dive is size . I like the 44mm size


----------



## Undersköterskan

Hurst said:


> The reason I ask this is .... The new PO with the 9300 just isn't in my budget. I wish it was !! I have found a used PO gen1 with the 3313 or I can get a brand new SM 300m chrono diver. I have read on other forums were people have said the 3313 is not worth the extra money over the 1164 My biggest problem with the 300m chrono dive is size . I like the 44mm size


You can't really compare the two; the 1164 is so much simpler from a technical point of view. I'm sure it will provide excellent timekeeping; it's rugged, reliable and has been on the market for decades but there's nothing fancy or even remotely exciting about the Valjoux-based caliber. The 3313 on the other hand, like all chronographs with a column wheel and vertical clutch, is a joy to handle. The precision in the start, stop and reset function is absolutely fabulous and this is where a chronograph controlled via a column wheel is vastly superior. Give it a go and you wont be able to go back to a non-column wheel chronograph ever again.

In the end, it's a question about your own interest in mechanical movements. If it's not that important, then go with the caliber 1164 but if you want a state-of-the-art chronograph with plenty to show off, then you'd better go with the 3313 or the 9300-series of movements.

Regards
Undersköterskan


----------



## mondodec

I am well aware of the 8500 single riveted wheel which is part of a different system. The 8500 hardly compares with the thinner plate 3313



auspuffturbolader said:


> Google the technical guide for the Omega 8500 movement. Under barrel bridge lubrication the same style riveted gear is shown. Maybe the 8500 needs to be avoided as well.


----------



## RogerP

NoleenELT said:


> Also, the abbreviation of "you are" is "you're."


That's a contraction, not an abbreviation. ;-) This thread is re-kindling my desire for an Aqua Terra Chrono. And I'd take a PO with the 3313 over the 7750-powered Seamaster Chrono every single day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'm not a 7750 hater - I have that movement (or derivatives) in 3 watches. But they are all at lower price points.


----------



## NoleenELT

RogerP said:


> That's a contraction, not an abbreviation.


Ouch, *you're* right!


----------



## NoleenELT

Hurst said:


> The reason I ask this is .... The new PO with the 9300 just isn't in my budget. I wish it was !! I have found a used PO gen1 with the 3313 or I can get a brand new SM 300m chrono diver. I have read on other forums were people have said the 3313 is not worth the extra money over the 1164 My biggest problem with the 300m chrono dive is size . I like the 44mm size


The 300m is still quite a nice watch. As other have said, the movement is less interesting, but it's know for being dead reliable. The style is obviously up to you. If you were talking about a a new 300m vs. a new POC, the additional price of the POC might be hard to justify, but for the price of a used one, I'd say the POC is much nicer. Also, maybe you don't care about this, but the used watch will have a value much closer to what you paid for it compared to the new one if you ever want/need to sell it.

For what it's worth, I was afraid that the POC would be too big, but I got used to it very quickly.


----------



## Archer

auspuffturbolader said:


> Google the technical guide for the Omega 8500 movement. Under barrel bridge lubrication the same style riveted gear is shown. Maybe the 8500 needs to be avoided as well.


Yes it does - for those who haven't seen it, here is a crop from the 8500 tech guide:










Same as used on the 3313 and family, but only one instead of 3 wheels.

The 9300 also has it, but they are on an operating lever, so this part is easily replaced if needed:










In my view the distaste for this design is completely irrational. It works well, and allows for the watch to be much thinner. I have never had to replace these parts in any watch I've serviced, so the idea that these won't hold up is really just people trying to justify their dislike of how it looks.

Any failures of this area are likely due to watchmakers not putting enough lubrication on the wheels (not follwing the documentation). The mentality that is drilled into us from our first time at school servicing a watch is to be very controlled with the amount of lubrication we apply, and not to apply too much. To properly lubricate this area, that has to be thrown out the window, and you really put far more here than on any other part of a watch I can think of.

It does not mean it's inferior, just different.

Cheers, Al


----------



## jordang[email protected]

Archer said:


> Yes it does - for those who haven't seen it, here is a crop from the 8500 tech guide:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same as used on the 3313 and family, but only one instead of 3 wheels.
> 
> The 9300 also has it, but they are on an operating lever, so this part is easily replaced if needed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view the distaste for this design is completely irrational. It works well, and allows for the watch to be much thinner. I have never had to replace these parts in any watch I've serviced, so the idea that these won't hold up is really just people trying to justify their dislike of how it looks.
> 
> Any failures of this area are likely due to watchmakers not putting enough lubrication on the wheels (not follwing the documentation). The mentality that is drilled into us from our first time at school servicing a watch is to be very controlled with the amount of lubrication we apply, and not to apply too much. To properly lubricate this area, that has to be thrown out the window, and you really put far more here than on any other part of a watch I can think of.
> 
> It does not mean it's inferior, just different.
> 
> Cheers, Al


thats another internet myth put to rest then. cheers Al.


----------



## Undersköterskan

It's a delight having people like you on this forum, Al !  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

the 9300 is way above the 3313 in terms of stability, accuracy and robustness.


----------



## GTTIME

To be fair there were a lot of 3313 failures a few years back. If we had Al then I probably would have bought the 3313 Speedy. That said I love the 9300 Speedy, both the watch design and the movement.


----------



## NoleenELT

georges zaslavsky said:


> the 9300 is way above the 3313 in terms of stability, accuracy and robustness.


Do you have anything to back this up?

Regardless, the OP has already said that he can't buy the 9300.


----------



## mt1tdi

My late 2010 3313 POC only takes a back seat to my Grand Seiko Spring Drive Diver in terms of accuracy.

i haven't read about any 3313 issues in quite some time.


----------



## GTTIME

NoleenELT said:


> Do you have anything to back this up?
> 
> Regardless, the OP has already said that he can't buy the 9300.


Really, come on let's be practical. This really is a given, is it not???


----------



## georges zaslavsky

NoleenELT said:


> Do you have anything to back this up?
> 
> Regardless, the OP has already said that he can't buy the 9300.


Yes this 
Than tell me why Uhrquart said this on the purist pro two years ago:
*SU: Ok, very interesting, this came up before in the previous interview [meaning the session just prior]. We've already said so, so I can say it again, we have an in-house chronograph movement in the works that will be presented next year in Basel. In-house, not based on the 8500, but the same technology, with double barrel, with a column wheel, with three-level Co-Axial. That will be a very important introduction for us. We will keep the Piguet 3313 that will be upgraded to a three level Co-Axial escapement for certain models, mainly - size-wise - ladies chronographs. This will be a more sturdy movement with a 60 hour power reserve with an emphasis on quality and reliability. It will replace a lot of our existing models, especially for men.

*Also check these threads:
Co-Axial Chrono in the Olympic Collection - 422.13.41.50.04.001 
https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/does-3313-c-have-three-level-co-axial-646439.html
https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/who-produced-first-automatic-chronograph-256831.html
https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/3313-information-about-movement-642188.html
https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/3303-must-go-back-repair-center-489888.html
Omega 3313 virus hit today!
https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/po-chrono-broken-459890.html
3301
https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/callibre-3313-again-396382.html
https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/caliber-3313-related-movements-question-495104.html
https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/basel-08-speedmaster-moonwatch-enamel-138769.html
That is enough food for thought and also stamped parts on the 33xx don't make of it a high range movement.


----------



## Undersköterskan

Ah, I was just waiting for Georges, the notorious and biased 33xx-hater, to step into this thread.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Undersköterskan said:


> Ah, I was just waiting for Georges, the notorious and biased 33xx-hater, to step into this thread.


I am not a hater, I am just like Chuck Maddox (rip) who disliked marketing hyped and unreliable movements. You will always find me on topics regarding the 33xx. When something is bad or of average quality and questionable reliability, don't claim that it is a high range or prestige product.


----------



## [email protected]

Undersköterskan said:


> Ah, I was just waiting for Georges, the notorious and biased 33xx-hater, to step into this thread.


and he has never owned one


----------



## Undersköterskan

georges zaslavsky said:


> ...don't claim that it is a high range or prestige product.


But that's just what it is, cant you see ? From a technical point of view, this is a high-class movement. It's definately a prestige product, developed as Omegas top-of-the-line chronograph series (a position it held for 10 years until the debut of the 93xx in 2011) with every single component developed with longevity in mind. Don't take my word for it, feel free to read Alexander Linz excellent review of the 3303-powered Broad Arrow in the 2001 december issue of Watch Time about the series "superlative qualities". And if that's not good enough, how come Vacheron Constantin (VC caliber 1137 pictured below) and Audemars Piguet (AP caliber 285, pictured below) choose to rely on the exact same base caliber (Frederic Piguet caliber 1285) if it's such a lousy, poorly designed product ? These are haute horlogerie movements, Georges, just like the Omega 33xx, whether you like it or not.

You just dont like the movement. And you do have a point. Or atleast you had one. We all know the 3313 was plagued by problems in the early years of production, just like its siblings 3301 and 3303, not to mention the 2500A, but that was years ago. Nowadays, we're not reading more about faulty 33xx than we read about an occassional faulty movement in the 2500-series. The B- and C-versions of the 3313 seems to perform perfectly well. I know you always bring up the ETA 7750 or Lemania 5100 for comparison, but come on; those are definately tried-and-tested and very reliable chronograph calibers (i'm with you that far), but you cannot compare the very basic nature of the 5100 full of plastic components with a state-of-the-art vertical coupling, column wheel controlled chronograph with co-axial escapement and free-sprung balance. Functionally, not to mention esthetically, they're a world apart.

The 33xx, when it works as it should, is a joy to handle. I'm perfectly satisfied with mine, and I'm thinking about adding a 9300 to the collection aswell. I'm glad to see you seem to approve of that movement as of yet, or was that before you were informed about the two riveted wheels in this thread ? I'm sure you could find a part or two that has been stamped there aswell 

Regards
Undersköterskan


----------



## GaryF

georges zaslavsky said:


> Yes this
> Than tell me why Uhrquart said this on the purist pro two years ago:
> *SU: Ok, very interesting, this came up before in the previous interview [meaning the session just prior]. We've already said so, so I can say it again, we have an in-house chronograph movement in the works that will be presented next year in Basel. In-house, not based on the 8500, but the same technology, with double barrel, with a column wheel, with three-level Co-Axial. That will be a very important introduction for us. We will keep the Piguet 3313 that will be upgraded to a three level Co-Axial escapement for certain models, mainly - size-wise - ladies chronographs. This will be a more sturdy movement with a 60 hour power reserve with an emphasis on quality and reliability. It will replace a lot of our existing models, especially for men.
> 
> *


Oh, I don't know, because he has an interest in selling watches with the new movement in?

To be fair, NoleenELT asked you if you had anything to back up "the 9300 is way above the 3313 in terms of stability, accuracy and robustness."

The Urquhart statement, even if you assume he has no reason to try and push the 9300, only mentions robustness. At no point does he say anything about the 3313 not being as accurate or stable as the 9300.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Undersköterskan said:


> But that's just what it is, cant you see ? From a technical point of view, this is a high-class movement. It's definately a prestige product, developed as Omegas top-of-the-line chronograph series (a position it held for 10 years until the debut of the 93xx in 2011) with every single component developed with longevity in mind. Don't take my word for it, feel free to read Alexander Linz excellent review of the 3303-powered Broad Arrow in the 2001 december issue of Watch Time about the series "superlative qualities". And if that's not good enough, how come Vacheron Constantin (VC caliber 1137 pictured below) and Audemars Piguet (AP caliber 285, pictured below) choose to rely on the exact same base caliber (Frederic Piguet caliber 1285) if it's such a lousy, poorly designed product ? These are haute horlogerie movements, Georges, just like the Omega 33xx, whether you like it or not.
> 
> You just dont like the movement. And you do have a point. Or atleast you had one. We all know the 3313 was plagued by problems in the early years of production, just like its siblings 3301 and 3303, not to mention the 2500A, but that was years ago. Nowadays, we're not reading more about faulty 33xx than we read about an occassional faulty movement in the 2500-series. The B- and C-versions of the 3313 seems to perform perfectly well. I know you always bring up the ETA 7750 or Lemania 5100 for comparison, but come on; those are definately tried-and-tested and very reliable chronograph calibers (i'm with you that far), but you cannot compare the very basic nature of the 5100 full of plastic components with a state-of-the-art vertical coupling, column wheel controlled chronograph with co-axial escapement and free-sprung balance. Functionally, not to mention esthetically, they're a world apart.
> 
> The 33xx, when it works as it should, is a joy to handle. I'm perfectly satisfied with mine, and I'm thinking about adding a 9300 to the collection aswell. I'm glad to see you seem to approve of that movement as of yet, or was that before you were informed about the two riveted wheels in this thread ? I'm sure you could find a part or two that has been stamped there aswell
> 
> Regards
> Undersköterskan
> 
> View attachment 847548
> 
> 
> View attachment 847549


If you want to talk about haute horlogerie then, talk about the patek ch 27-70q and patek new bid compax inhouse chrono but certainly this one. There are people appreciative of these movements but I am not one of them. I value more an El Primero 410, a Rolex 4030, a Rolex 4130, a 9300, jlc 752 and a Breitling B01 over these movements anyday when it comes to reliability, durability and accuracy.


----------



## NoleenELT

georges zaslavsky said:


> Yes this
> Than tell me why Uhrquart said this on the purist pro two years ago:
> *SU: Ok, very interesting, this came up before in the previous interview [meaning the session just prior]. We've already said so, so I can say it again, we have an in-house chronograph movement in the works that will be presented next year in Basel. In-house, not based on the 8500, but the same technology, with double barrel, with a column wheel, with three-level Co-Axial. That will be a very important introduction for us. We will keep the Piguet 3313 that will be upgraded to a three level Co-Axial escapement for certain models, mainly - size-wise - ladies chronographs. This will be a more sturdy movement with a 60 hour power reserve with an emphasis on quality and reliability. It will replace a lot of our existing models, especially for men.
> 
> *Also check these threads:
> Co-Axial Chrono in the Olympic Collection - 422.13.41.50.04.001
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/does-3313-c-have-three-level-co-axial-646439.html
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/who-produced-first-automatic-chronograph-256831.html
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/3313-information-about-movement-642188.html
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/3303-must-go-back-repair-center-489888.html
> Omega 3313 virus hit today!
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/po-chrono-broken-459890.html
> 3301
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/callibre-3313-again-396382.html
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/caliber-3313-related-movements-question-495104.html
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/basel-08-speedmaster-moonwatch-enamel-138769.html
> That is enough food for thought and also stamped parts on the 33xx don't make of it a high range movement.


O

Of all of the threads that you posted links to:
1. Thread where you and only you posted the same information above
2. Thread that was started by me, where you posted irrelevant information that I did not ask for talking down on my new watch.
3. Completely irrelevant.
4. Does not prove your point.
5. Very old watch, not a 3313.
6. Two year old thread.
7. Two year old thread.
8. Two years old, not a 3313, another thread where you come in and bash this movement.
9. Another post where you say to avoid this movement with no real facts.
10. Another post with the same information regurgitated here.
11. Too long to me to read, but seems not to prove your point

I'm by no means an expert, but I've never seen any hard proof other than a few watches that failed, which were all years ago, and earlier versions of this movement.

You used stamped parts as an argument, but isn't the 7750 mostly made up of stamped parts?


----------



## NoleenELT

georges zaslavsky said:


> If you want to talk about haute horlogerie then, talk about the patek ch 27-70q and patek new bid compax inhouse chrono but certainly this one. There are people appreciative of these movements but I am not one of them. I value more an El Primero 410, a Rolex 4030, a Rolex 4130, a 9300, jlc 752 and a Breitling B01 over these movements anyday when it comes to reliability, durability and accuracy.


This is getting ridiculous. Those watches all cost significantly more than the Omega. I don't really see how this is a comparison.


----------



## KringleKriss

georges zaslavsky said:


> I am not a hater, I am just like Chuck Maddox...........


With all due respect, Georges, when it comes to argumented discussion, you're more like Chuck Norris then Chuck Maddox....


----------



## georges zaslavsky

KringleKriss said:


> With all due respect, Georges, when it comes to argumented discussion, you're more like Chuck Norris then Chuck Maddox....


Excuse me but you have absolutely zero knowledge about the 33xx subject nor discussions, so I don't think you are well placed to make such comments. You have never participated in any of the threads related to it whether here or in chronocentric in the past. So you know what I think of your less than valid and userless opinion. You are not one of the older members of the wus crowd so I have zero lessons to take from you. It is not the first time you are stirring up things but as long as you will continue, I will reply to you in this way. When you will stop insulting me and stop using low end sarcasm towards me in a definitve manner, then perhaps I will be nicer to you. Enough is enough.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

NoleenELT said:


> This is getting ridiculous. Those watches all cost significantly more than the Omega. I don't really see how this is a comparison.


the 33xx was enough pricy for its msrp, but it still doesn't excuse the failure rate it had and the fact that it will be only used in women's chronograph is a sign of something. As opposed to this movement, the others despite being more costly never had a failure rate like the 33xx.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

unlike a 33xx, a 7750 or a 5100 even if they are not high end, they are bullet proof and reliable.


----------



## Undersköterskan

georges zaslavsky said:


> ...the fact that it will be only used in women's chronograph is a sign of something.


Yes, the fact that Omega keep relying on the 3313 must be a sign of something. I think it's because the 3313C, the only version currently in production, doesn't take nearly the space required to house the 93xx, so it's perfect for women's watches. And I'm quite sure Omega would not keep on producing a movement for over a decade if they still thought of it as being unreliable; that would be bad for business so they would either rectify the problems (which they did years ago) or cease the production (which they haven't since the rectified movement is durable, reliable and of course deadly accurate). It's as simple as that, Georges.


----------



## GaryF

georges zaslavsky said:


> ... the fact that it will be only used in women's chronograph is a sign of something....


A sign of what, exactly?


----------



## GaryF

georges zaslavsky said:


> Excuse me but you have absolutely zero knowledge about the 33xx subject nor discussions, so I don't think you are well placed to make such comments. You have never participated in any of the threads related to it whether here or in chronocentric in the past. So you know what I think of your less than valid and userless opinion. You are not one of the older members of the wus crowd so I have zero lessons to take from you. It is not the first time you are stirring up things but as long as you will continue, I will reply to you in this way. When you will stop insulting me and stop using low end sarcasm towards me in a definitve manner, then perhaps I will be nicer to you. Enough is enough.


Where to start.
It seems to me that his comment was in response to your comparing yourself to the late Chuck Maddox. This was something that probably made a lot of members chuckle, regardless of which threads they had participated in previously.

Which brings me to the second point (and for this one I'm donning my mod' hat). You do not get to choose who can express opinions based on their thread history. The fact that someone hasn't posted in one of your chosen threads tells us nothing about whether or not they have any knowledge on the subject. And, if it did, that still wouldn't mean that they aren't allowed to contribute.


----------



## bigdavep

Archer said:


> Yes it does - for those who haven't seen it, here is a crop from the 8500 tech guide:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same as used on the 3313 and family, but only one instead of 3 wheels.
> 
> The 9300 also has it, but they are on an operating lever, so this part is easily replaced if needed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view the distaste for this design is completely irrational. It works well, and allows for the watch to be much thinner. I have never had to replace these parts in any watch I've serviced, so the idea that these won't hold up is really just people trying to justify their dislike of how it looks.
> 
> Any failures of this area are likely due to watchmakers not putting enough lubrication on the wheels (not follwing the documentation). The mentality that is drilled into us from our first time at school servicing a watch is to be very controlled with the amount of lubrication we apply, and not to apply too much. To properly lubricate this area, that has to be thrown out the window, and you really put far more here than on any other part of a watch I can think of.
> 
> It does not mean it's inferior, just different.
> 
> Cheers, Al


Just out of curiosity is the part replaceable on the 3313 and 8500.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## georges zaslavsky

GaryF said:


> A sign of what, exactly?


a sign of questionable reliability


----------



## NoleenELT

GaryF said:


> Where to start.
> It seems to me that his comment was in response to your comparing yourself to the late Chuck Maddox. This was something that probably made a lot of members chuckle, regardless of which threads they had participated in previously.
> 
> Which brings me to the second point (and for this one I'm donning my mod' hat). You do not get to choose who can express opinions based on their thread history. The fact that someone hasn't posted in one of your chosen threads tells us nothing about whether or not they have any knowledge on the subject. And, if it did, that still wouldn't mean that they aren't allowed to contribute.


Not to mention that having an extensive history and/or high post count does not automatically make your posts valuable (this comment is directed towards Gerorges, not GaryF).


----------



## KringleKriss

georges zaslavsky said:


> ... the fact that it will be only used in women's chronograph is a sign of something....





georges zaslavsky said:


> a sign of questionable reliability


Boy Georges, it's not going to be easy to dig yourself out of this one :-(


----------



## GaryF

georges zaslavsky said:


> a sign of questionable reliability


Okay. I think I need to repeat this because it's a little staggering that even you would come out with it.

You are seriously saying that "the fact that it will only be used in women's chronograph" is "a sign of questionable reliability"?

Ooookay.

Would you like to explain why women would be require "questionable reliability" from a movement? Or is it perhaps simply that they would know no better?


----------



## GaryF

NoleenELT said:


> Not to mention that having an extensive history and/or high post count does not automatically make your posts valuable.


Clearly.


----------



## GinGinD

georges zaslavsky said:


> the fact that it will be only used in women's chronograph is a sign of something.


:-s :-|



GaryF said:


> A sign of what, exactly?


Chauvinism perhaps?

Just sayin...

Despite have two X chromosomes I personally like reliability in a watch movement. It helps me time exactly how long I've kept my husband waiting. ;-)

Jeannie


----------



## KringleKriss

GinGinD said:


> Despite have two X chromosomes I personally like reliability in a watch movement.....


Yeah, that's exactly what my wife says. She knows how mad I get if my lunch is late.


----------



## Undersköterskan

georges zaslavsky said:


> ...the fact that it will be only used in women's chronograph is a sign of something.





georges zaslavsky said:


> a sign of questionable reliability


You honestly think Omega would keep producing a movement they consider unreliable ? And then put it in womens chronographs simply because women wouldn't mind if their chronos stopped working ? Georges, are you for real ?

It hasn't occured to you that there might be another and considerably more likely explanation ? Try to think about it with a somewhat sober mind, Georges. The reason the 3313C movement is in production is that it takes up alot less space than the 93xx-series, which makes it perfect in ladies chronos (and other watches where space is of great concern). If there would be anything wrong with the movement, Omega would not keep on producing it for more than a decade.



KringleKriss said:


> Boy Georges, it's not going to be easy to dig yourself out of this one :-(


He's done a good job digging his own grave, and being rude towards you and NoleenELT hardly helps. The good thing is we can always refer to this thread everytime Georges starts bashing the 33xx, hopefully no one will listen to him no more. There are so many people out there with a more balanced view when it comes to this series of calibers.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

GaryF said:


> Okay. I think I need to repeat this because it's a little staggering that even you would come out with it.
> 
> You are seriously saying that "the fact that it will only be used in women's chronograph" is "a sign of questionable reliability"?
> 
> Ooookay.
> 
> Would you like to explain why women would be require "questionable reliability" from a movement? Or is it perhaps simply that they would know no better?


Three versions of the same movement in less than ten years and you dare to call that reliable. A movement which had an alarming failure rate and questionable reliability even Mondodec agreed with me about this movement in the past, yet you still continue to consider it as high range despite its construction made of stamped parts. The fact that it used in women chronographs is more or less a sign that it is not made for rough activities or sports because women are more delicate with watches. You weren't aware how many problems there were with the Piguet Based Blancpain Yachting Monaco Chronographs series made in 2003 as well as with their Air Command Fly Backs.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Undersköterskan said:


> You honestly think Omega would keep producing a movement they consider unreliable ? And then put it in womens chronographs simply because women wouldn't mind if their chronos stopped working ? Georges, are you for real ?
> 
> It hasn't occured to you that there might be another and considerably more likely explanation ? Try to think about it with a somewhat sober mind, Georges. The reason the 3313C movement is in production is that it takes up alot less space than the 93xx-series, which makes it perfect in ladies chronos (and other watches where space is of great concern). If there would be anything wrong with the movement, Omega would not keep on producing it for more than a decade.
> 
> He's done a good job digging his own grave, and being rude towards you and NoleenELT hardly helps. The good thing is we can always refer to this thread everytime Georges starts bashing the 33xx, hopefully no one will listen to him no more. There are so many people out there with a more balanced view when it comes to this series of calibers.


There are people who listened my advice and who didn't buy a 33xx chronograph.Yes and you can ask these members why they listened me. I don't compare a flawless concepted movement with an ill born movement corrected in an interval of 10 years with three variants. This is plain and simple as that. I don't buy marketing but what I do care is absolute accuracy and reliability from the conception and the introduction of a movement on the market from day 1 unlike marketing hype praisers. 
Kringle Kriss made a sour sarcasm comment on me and it isn't the first time that he is it. Also for your concern, there were biased views of the 33xx claiming it is wonderful and oustanding, in terms of aesthetics it is outstanding but in terms of durability and durability, it fails. There have been people who listened to me and I am sure there will be people who buy a watch according to the absolute reliability of the movement rather than the marketing hype praisers buying a marketing hyped movement who later only have mishappenings.


----------



## NoleenELT

georges zaslavsky said:


> Three versions of the same movement in less than ten years and you dare to call that reliable. A movement which had an alarming failure rate and questionable reliability even Mondodec agreed with me about this movement in the past, yet you still continue to consider it as high range despite its construction made of stamped parts. The fact that it used in women chronographs is more or less a sign that it is not made for rough activities or sports because women are more delicate with watches. You weren't aware how many problems there were with the Piguet Based Blancpain Yachting Monaco Chronographs series made in 2003 as well as with their Air Command Fly Backs.


The early versions of the movement had problems that Omega rectified. Specifically what are the problems that you are talking about which continue to plague the "C" version?

Also, are you saying that stamped parts are weaker and more prone to breaking than some other type of parts? Specifically which parts of the movement are stamped, and how should they be produced on a "high end" movement?


----------



## GaryF

As usual, Georges, you seem unable deal with the arguments as presented. I have at no point argued that the movement is reliable but since my actual argument was that the Steven Urquhart quote which you claimed backed up your point that the 9300 was more "way above the 3313 in terms of stability, accuracy and robustness" clearly said no such thing, I can understand why you'd prefer to pretend that I said something else entirely. 
By the way, my wife has a Seamaster that's in a shocking state. Banged up in a way that would make me wince were it one of mine. Maybe you should rethink making generalisations about how women behave since it risks creating an unfortunate impression.

I look forward to a list of obscure (no doubt vintage) genders that you prefer by way of rebuttal/redirection.



georges zaslavsky said:


> Three versions of the same movement in less than ten years and you dare to call that reliable. A movement which had an alarming failure rate and questionable reliability even Mondodec agreed with me about this movement in the past, yet you still continue to consider it as high range despite its construction made of stamped parts. The fact that it used in women chronographs is more or less a sign that it is not made for rough activities or sports because women are more delicate with watches. You weren't aware how many problems there were with the Piguet Based Blancpain Yachting Monaco Chronographs series made in 2003 as well as with their Air Command Fly Backs.


----------



## GTTIME

Guys lets not take this all so personal. George is entitled to his opinion as is every single person on this site. 

George perhaps swayed my view of the 3313 several years ago, I have no ill will. I am quite happy with my choices.


----------



## GaryF

GTTIME said:


> Guys lets not take this all so personal. George is entitled to his opinion as is every single person on this site.
> 
> George perhaps swayed my view of the 3313 several years ago, I have no ill will. I am quite happy with my choices.


Georges is entitled to post his opinion and everyone else is entitled to refute, disagree or ask for clarification on it.


----------



## mt1tdi

But Gary, he's singlehandedly killed my resale value! Lol


----------



## Undersköterskan

georges zaslavsky said:


> the 9300 is way above the 3313 in terms of accuracy


That's wrong. Accuracy has never been a problem with either caliber; both have co-axial escapements and free sprung balances, both are known to be deadly accurate.



georges zaslavsky said:


> Three versions of the same movement in less than ten years and you dare to call that reliable.


Indeed I do. What has the number of revisions to do with durability/reliability in the first place ? Let's see, the Omega caliber 8500 has been around for only five years (it was introduced in january 2007) and there's already a second version of it (the Omega caliber 8500B) so I presume it has to be a total disaster aswell then in terms of reliability ?

Keep it coming, Georges. No matter how wrong you are, you'll always be entertaining


----------



## NoleenELT

GTTIME said:


> Guys lets not take this all so personal. George is entitled to his opinion as is every single person on this site.
> 
> George perhaps swayed my view of the 3313 several years ago, I have no ill will. I am quite happy with my choices.


I'm just asking for facts to back up his opinions, which I have not yet seen. I've read every thread that I can find about the 3313, and I haven't found one yet that convinced me that it's a bad movement (other than a few issues with the earlier versions).

And I did start to take it personally when I had obtained my 3313 and Georges (and you) continued to tell me what a junk movement that it is, even though it was not related or requested information.


----------



## GaryF

mt1tdi said:


> But Gary, he's singlehandedly killed my resale value! Lol


Meanwhile, the 9300 owners will have great resale AND nice biceps. Life is cruel.


----------



## auspuffturbolader

What are really bad are the Omega 561 and 564. If I read more sources correctly the 561 was produced 1958-1965. Only 7 years total with who knows how many revisions. Following certain lines of logic, this movement must have been a real dog. The 564 although rather similar probably stopped production in 1972 or so? Either way the length of time a movement is produced or the number of revisions done to it has absolutely no bearing on the quality of the movement. Even the Omega 1045 was only around for what 13 years?


----------



## RogerP

I'd love to hear some actual facts in support of the claim that this movement has an "alarming" failure rate. Even the few anecdotal accounts (dated and overblown by endless repetition) wouldn't come near to supporting that kind of conclusion. Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, that's true. But endless and loud repetition cannot transform opinion into fact.


----------



## Archer

GaryF said:


> As usual, Georges, you seem unable deal with the arguments as presented. I have at no point argued that the movement is reliable but since my actual argument was that the Steven Urquhart quote which you claimed backed up your point that the 9300 was more "way above the 3313 in terms of stability, accuracy and robustness" clearly said no such thing, I can understand why you'd prefer to pretend that I said something else entirely.
> By the way, my wife has a Seamaster that's in a shocking state. Banged up in a way that would make me wince were it one of mine. Maybe you should rethink making generalisations about how women behave since it risks creating an unfortunate impression.
> 
> I look forward to a list of obscure (no doubt vintage) genders that you prefer by way of rebuttal/redirection.


I agree - the arguments are pretty weak, and there are straw men all over the place in this thread. Many watches have stamped parts, even the 8500, 9300, 2500, etc. etc. It is not a reflection of how robust they are.

And I can verify your experience is not an anomoly Gary, because my wife is also VERY hard on watches. In fact, most women's watches that end up on my bench are in far worse condition than most men's watches.

I think if Georges simply said he didn't like the movement and it was a personal thing, most here would be fine with that. But pulling all these nonsensical reasons out is really killing any credibility in my view....

Cheers, Al


----------



## hidden by leaves

RogerP said:


> I'd love to hear some actual facts in support of the claim that this movement has an "alarming" failure rate. Even the few anecdotal accounts (dated and overblown by endless repetition) wouldn't come near to supporting that kind of conclusion. Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, that's true. But endless and loud repetition cannot transform opinion into fact.


Agree. This is like a microcosm (mercifully micro) of _The Saga of the 2500_... And for those familiar, I think M4tt's bet is still standing(?)


----------



## shadowfaxx

Hello Al, i have a POC 3313, and i have had it serviced by Omega before due to -7 sec loss per day which to me was not in the range omega declared. So now that they have serviced it and it has been running fine and in the range set for it. Is there any easy way to tell which model of the 3313 i have the a b or c? Thanks


----------



## NoleenELT

shadowfaxx said:


> Hello Al, i have a POC 3313, and i have had it serviced by Omega before due to -7 sec loss per day which to me was not in the range omega declared. So now that they have serviced it and it has been running fine and in the range set for it. Is there any easy way to tell which model of the 3313 i have the a b or c? Thanks


I Emailed omega with my serial number and they told me.


----------



## hasauto

Wish I would have read this first... I just bought a PO chrono with 3313 mouv. I bought it used and already the chrono will not reset to o position. Thank god it still has warrantee since the servicing was done 2 weeks ago.. Ill bring it in this weekend and see what they say!
Is this a common problem with this movment or just a bad servicing job?
thanks
Tyler


----------



## SilentWatchMaker

Hurst said:


> I am Looking at a PO with the Caliber 3313. I know it does not compare to the new 9300 but have heard that I would be better off with the Caliber 1164 than the cal3313. What is everyone experience with the PO with the 3313 ? So yea or na on the 3313


Hello Original post. There have been a lot of comments on here that make opinions about various movements. I will stay away from those but add some though to what you are looking for within a watch.

OMEGA have a new Chronograph coming out which is based around the 1164 (7750) but incorporates a coaxial escapement and column wheel. This movement will be the 3330 and within this.









You can imagine that this isn't the only watch this movement has been manufacture for. If you can't make your mind up between the 3313 and the 1164, maybe this will be worth the wait?


----------



## GTTIME

I think as with all things the passage of time makes things seem less dramatic or important. I have probably changed my own view of the 3313 movements but truthfully my guess is that either the problems were fixed or people sold watches that they didn't have faith in. 

These very forums were on fire about problems with the 3313 and then the 2500s started having oiling issues and the number of comments on the 3313 dropped significantly.


----------



## RogerP

GTTIME said:


> *These very forums were on fire about problems with the 3313* and then the 2500s started having oiling issues and the number of comments on the 3313 dropped significantly.


I believe that perception of the problem exceeded the reality. I owned a 3313 back in the day, so I was very much aware of the forum furor over the problems. But I quickly became aware that it seemed to be the same handful of guys screaming about the same problems in every thread having anything remotely to do with this particular movement. There were a lot more guys - like myself - who reported having no problems at all, but we were routinely shouted down. Somebody who's ticked off and has an axe to grind will be a lot more persistent in carping about it than someone who is just happy with their watch. And those in the latter group were less inclined to even want to talk about their watches, because they knew that a torrent of negativity would follow as sure as night follows day - which further contributed to the overall negative perception.

Nobody disputes that there were early problems and that some people experienced disappointing failures. But claims of "alarming failure rates" and such have never been substantiated by anything more than a lot of thumping of fists and stamping of feet as far as I can recall.


----------



## Simon-77

RogerP said:


> Nobody disputes that there were early problems and that some people experienced disappointing failures. But claims of "alarming failure rates" and such have never been substantiated by anything more than a lot of thumping of fists and stamping of feet as far as I can recall.


Roger, I can understand what you're saying here, but the problem is, even Omega was not 100% sure about these movements and eliminated using them in all their new watches in the end. If what you are saying is true, and they have fixed all the "early problems," then why did they invent three new movements? 9300, 8500, and the new 3330. I have no axe, I'm just an observant who wants to be as safe as possible with his investments.


----------



## RogerP

Simon-77 said:


> Roger, I can understand what you're saying here, but the problem is, even Omega was not 100% sure about these movements and eliminated using them in all their new watches in the end. If what you are saying is true, and they have fixed all the "early problems," then why did they invent three new movements? 9300, 8500, and the new 3330. I have no axe, I'm just an observant who wants to be as safe as possible with his investments.


Omega has eliminated the movement from all their new watches? Where did you get that from? I was just handling a brand new AT chrono (rose Gold hands and markers on a silver dial - gorgeous watch) with the 3313 inside.

Omega developed new movements because they are trying to move the brand upscale and perceived that state of the art in-house calibers would be a key component to achieving that goal. Is the development of every new movement by any manufacturer necessarily predicated on the prior movements being junk? I don't follow that reasoning at all.

I don't have an axe to gring either, BTW - I don't presently own any watch with that particular movement. But I have looked critically at the "forum furor" since its inception, and for the reasons I outlined above, find it to be more of a case of a few lound angry voices shouting the same message at every opportunity versus actual widespread failures over the now relatively long life of this movement.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy a watch today because it had that movement in it. But I'm not trying to sell you or anybody else anything - buy what you like and what you feel comfortable with.


----------



## Simon-77

RogerP said:


> Omega has eliminated the movement from all their new watches? Where did you get that from? I was just handling a brand new AT chrono (rose Gold hands and markers on a silver dial - gorgeous watch) with the 3313 inside.


The keyword here was the "new watches." I do not consider AT chrono a new watch, since it is not a new design. They have been around for a few years now. Omega just made a special edition for London Olympics, but nothing is new about it.

I don't know about you, but I feel safer buying a movement that is designed based on Co-Axial escapement instead of one that is modified to work with co-ax, and that's the whole problem with 3313. From what I have observed so far, I would prefer to have 3330 in my watch over 3313. A couple of bad apples are still bad apples, and moving upscale or not, that kind of quality is not acceptable from a brand like Omega.


----------



## RogerP

Simon-77 said:


> The keyword here was the "new watches." I do not consider AT chrono a new watch, since it is not a new design. They have been around for a few years now. Omega just made a special edition for London Olympics, but nothing is new about it.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I feel safer buying a movement that is designed based on Co-Axial escapement instead of one that is modified to work with co-ax, and that's the whole problem with 3313. From what I have observed so far, I would prefer to have 3330 in my watch over 3313. A couple of bad apples are still bad apples, and moving upscale or not, that kind of quality is not acceptable from a brand like Omega.


Okay - so you're saying the movement will be used in no new watches going forward? Again, I ask where you got that from? The watch I am referring to is not the Olympic AT, but a new variation with gold markers on a silver dial - it was JUST released. That sure doesn't jive with what you claim to be a blanket abandonment of the movement, but then as we have already seen, there has been a good deal of misinformation in this thread.

So if Omega continues to make the 3313-equipped AT chrono for another 10 years, you would still stand behind the statement that they have "eliminated using them in all their new watches". That seems like a fairly strained use of language to me.


----------



## Simon-77

RogerP said:


> Okay - so you're saying the movement will be used in no new watches going forward? Again, I ask where you got that from? The watch I am referring to is not the Olympic AT, but a new variation with gold markers on a silver dial - it was JUST released. That sure doesn't jive with what you claim to be a blanket abandonment of the movement, but then as we have already seen, there has been a good deal of misinformation in this thread.
> 
> So if Omega continues to make the 3313-equipped AT chrono for another 10 years, you would still stand behind the statement that they have "eliminated using them in all their new watches". That seems like a fairly strained use of language to me.


To me it is like this: if they make a new Chevy Camaro, based on 2010 model and just change the appearance and body, it is still the same car. I don't consider it a new design. If they continue to make that AT for another 100 years, it doesn't make it a new design either. It is still the same design and movement they had before. So, I do not get what you are suggesting here.

Edit: BTW, in 5 years, I am sure Omega will use the new movements in AT as well as all other watches so far. Probably the next AT chrono is with a 3330. I guess we will see in 5 years.


----------



## RogerP

Simon - just curious - are you ever going to identify the source of YOUR claim that Omega won't use this movement in ANY new watches, or should we just assume you were making that up?


----------



## russny2000

Hi. Just to remind everyone what is 3313


----------



## NoleenELT

Simon-77 said:


> The keyword here was the "new watches." I do not consider AT chrono a new watch, since it is not a new design. They have been around for a few years now. Omega just made a special edition for London Olympics, but nothing is new about it.


So if Patek Phillipe comes out with a new chronograph movement and stops making the old ones, does that mean that the old one was no good?



Simon-77 said:


> I don't know about you, but I feel safer buying a movement that is designed based on Co-Axial escapement instead of one that is modified to work with co-ax, *and that's the whole problem with 3313*. From what I have observed so far, I would prefer to have 3330 in my watch over 3313. A couple of bad apples are still bad apples, and moving upscale or not, that kind of quality is not acceptable from a brand like Omega.


Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that none of the 3313 "epidemic" issues have been associated with the co-axial escapement at all. I thought that they were all related to weak chronograph components which were later upgraded?


----------



## NoleenELT

russny2000 said:


> Hi. Just to remind everyone what is 3313


Nice, I'm wearing mine today also!


----------



## Simon-77

RogerP said:


> Simon - just curious - are you ever going to identify the source of YOUR claim that Omega won't use this movement in ANY new watches, or should we just assume you were making that up?


I never said I have a source, if you read my post again, I said based on my own observations. After they have spent this much on making these new "in-house" movements, sooner or later they are going to use them in all the upcoming watches. Maybe the AT that you are referring to is an older design that is just released. If they had access to 3330 by the time they were designing it, for sure they would put the new one inside. I know the problems of 3313 were not because of co-ax, but a modified movement is not as trust-worthy as a complete renovation.

If you have the watch enjoy, but I for one never get a 3313 and worrying about may/when it would stop working.


----------



## RogerP

Okay - you made it up - that's what I thought. Not sure you you would "observe" Omega's future plans, but let's not even go there.


----------



## NoleenELT

Simon-77 said:


> I feel safer buying a movement that is designed based on Co-Axial escapement instead of one that is modified to work with *co-ax, and that's the whole problem with 3313*





Simon-77 said:


> *I know the problems of 3313 were not because of co-ax*, but a modified movement is not as trust-worthy as a complete renovation.
> 
> If you have the watch enjoy, but I for one never get a 3313 and worrying about may/when it would stop working.


If you don't want to buy one, that's fine, but get your story straight before you go advising others what to do.


----------



## RogerP

NoleenELT said:


> If you don't want to buy one, that's fine, but get your story straight before you go advising others what to do.


His story is a long way from straight. Here's what he said at the very outset:



Simon-77 said:


> Roger, I can understand what you're saying here, but the problem is, *even Omega was not 100% sure about these movements and eliminated using them in all their new watches in the end*. If what you are saying is true, and they have fixed all the "early problems," then why did they invent three new movements? 9300, 8500, and the new 3330. I have no axe, I'm just an observant who wants to be as safe as possible with his investments.


Factual claim with absolutely zero foundation in reality.

And to your point about Patek movements - yes, all former Patek movements no longer in current production are, by definition, complete junk. Why else would Patek go to the trouble of developing new movements? Of course, that goes for all former Omega movements as well. Cal. 321, cal. 30T2 - utter rubbish. Of course, the 9300 and 8500 will eventually be replaced one day - so they're technically junk too - they just don't know it yet.


----------



## Simon-77

NoleenELT said:


> If you don't want to buy one, that's fine, but get your story straight before you go advising others what to do.


I still stand by my words; the whole problem with 3313 is that it is a modified movement. When you introduce a new thing to an already working system, the outcome is unpredictable. Obviously you both are pro 3313, so my advice for others is to not listen to any one of us. Read through others' experiences, and there are a lot online, and decide for your own.


----------



## NoleenELT

Simon-77 said:


> I still stand by my words; the whole problem with 3313 is that it is a modified movement. When you introduce a new thing to an already working system, the outcome is unpredictable. Obviously you both are pro 3313, so my advice for others is to not listen to any one of us. Read through others' experiences, and there are a lot online, and decide for your own.


This is STILL incorrect. The problems with the 3313 also exist with the non-modified 33xx.

And you suggest that people should read online to make their own judgment, but that is difficult to do when "online" is full of people stating their opinions or assumptions as fact.


----------



## Simon-77

RogerP said:


> His story is a long way from straight. Here's what he said at the very outset:
> 
> Factual claim with absolutely zero foundation in reality.
> 
> And to your point about Patek movements - yes, all former Patek movements no longer in current production are, by definition, complete junk. Why else would Patek go to the trouble of developing new movements? Of course, that goes for all former Omega movements as well. Cal. 321, cal. 30T2 - utter rubbish. Of course, the 9300 and 8500 will eventually be replaced one day - so they're technically junk too - they just don't know it yet.


We were talking about faulty movements not old movements. But if that is how you want to roll, it is fine with me. Have fun!


----------



## Simon-77

NoleenELT said:


> And you suggest that people should read online to make their own judgment, but that is difficult to do when "online" is full of people stating their opinions or assumptions as fact.


I do not call "personal experience" assumptions or facts. That is the whole reason we read reviews, isn't it?


----------



## RogerP

Simon-77 said:


> I still stand by my words; the whole problem with 3313 is that it is a modified movement. When you introduce a new thing to an already working system, the outcome is unpredictable. Obviously you both are pro 3313, so my advice for others is to not listen to any one of us. Read through others' experiences, and there are a lot online, and decide for your own.


Standing by your words isn't the problem. Supporting your claims with anything remotely resembling facts - that's where you struggle mightily. But as I said at the outset - 33xx-bashers are long on rhetoric and short on facts as a general rule.


----------



## NoleenELT

Simon-77 said:


> I do not call "personal experience" assumptions or facts. That is the whole reason we read reviews, isn't it?


So how many 3313 movement problems have you personally experienced?


----------



## RogerP

Simon-77 said:


> I do not call "personal experience" assumptions or facts. That is the whole reason we read reviews, isn't it?


What is your personal experience with the cal. 3313? What is your personal experience with Omega's present and future plans for this movement? Don't have any? Right - so we're back to opinions, assumptions and just general stuff you made up.

Roger


----------



## GaryF

At the risk of sounding cynical, I think Omega brought in the 9300 because they felt they needed an "in-house" chrono' in the same way that they needed an "in-house" three-hander. The decision had little to do with not being sure about the existing movements and a lot to do with the need to offer something in-house as part of the shift upmarket.
In some ways both the 8500 and the 9300 are better than the movements they replace- and I'm certainly not trying to imply that they aren't both excellent- but they aren't better in every way. A large movement may help with tolerance-related headaches but there is a price to pay when coming up with a range of cases to contain it.


----------



## RogerP

GaryF said:


> At the risk of sounding cynical, I think Omega brought in the 9300 because they felt they needed an "in-house" chrono' in the same way that they needed an "in-house" three-hander. The decision had little to do with not being sure about the existing movements and a lot to do with the need to offer something in-house as part of the shift upmarket.
> In some ways both the 8500 and the 9300 are better than the movements they replace- and I'm certainly not trying to imply that they aren't both excellent- but they aren't better in every way. A large movement may help with tolerance-related headaches but there is a price to pay when coming up with a range of cases to contain it.


I think that's likely the case, and don't see it as cynical at all.


----------



## GaryF

GaryF said:


> At the risk of sounding cynical, I think Omega brought in the 9300 because they felt they needed an "in-house" chrono' in the same way that they needed an "in-house" three-hander. The decision had little to do with not being sure about the existing movements and a lot to do with the need to offer something in-house as part of the shift upmarket.
> In some ways both the 8500 and the 9300 are better than the movements they replace- and I'm certainly not trying to imply that they aren't both excellent- but they aren't better in every way. A large movement may help with tolerance-related headaches but there is a price to pay when coming up with a range of cases to contain it.


One thing I forgot to mention was the role of Fashion. The 9300 has quite widely-spaced subdials which work well on larger dials. Look at the contortions that the Zenith design department is having to go through in order to make the venerable El Primero work in today's fashionably large watches.


----------



## [email protected]

RogerP said:


> Standing by your words isn't the problem. Supporting your claims with anything remotely resembling facts - that's where you struggle mightily. But as I said at the outset - 33xx-bashers are long on rhetoric and short on facts as a general rule.


i wish i had your willpower and restraint rogerP


----------



## georges zaslavsky

RogerP said:


> Standing by your words isn't the problem. Supporting your claims with anything remotely resembling facts - that's where you struggle mightily. But as I said at the outset - 33xx-bashers are long on rhetoric and short on facts as a general rule.


You should have asked Chuck Maddox, he would have proved you and all the others wrong for making such high praise of the 33xx.


----------



## vbomega

georges zaslavsky said:


> You should have asked Chuck Maddox, he would have proved you and all the others wrong for making such high praise of the 33xx.


I would trust Archer, who is a highly qualified Omega trained practicing watchmaker any day of the week.


----------



## Undersköterskan

GaryF said:


> I think Omega brought in the 9300 because they felt they needed an "in-house" chrono' in the same way that they needed an "in-house" three-hander. The decision had little to do with not being sure about the existing movements and a lot to do with the need to offer something in-house as part of the shift upmarket.


I think you're quite right about that, an in-house chrono movement is absolutely necessary and the 93xx is the answer. The 3313C remains in production since it's perfect for watches where space is limited, such as ladies chronos.



georges zaslavsky said:


> You should have asked Chuck Maddox, he would have proved you and all the others wrong for making such high praise of the 33xx.


Georges, you're a completely different story and considering you've been writing alot of nonsense about the 33xx in pretty much every single thread I can find including this one, I think the greatest contribution of this specific thread is that every argument you present in your attempt to discredit the 33xx has been effectively taken apart and thrown out the window. You've totally lost your credibility and as Archer pointed out; if you'd just said you dislike the movement we would have no problem with it. Everyone is entitled an opinion. But you need to stop pulling out all these incorrect arguments that are totally out of touch with reality (for example when you stated that the 3313C should be regarded as unreliable since it's being placed in womens watches because women, in your world, are more careful about their watches).


----------



## RogerP

georges zaslavsky said:


> You should have asked Chuck Maddox, he would have proved you and all the others wrong for making such high praise of the 33xx.


This was a subject I discussed with Chuck in more than one thread back in the day. He didn't prove anything to me.



vbomega said:


> I would trust Archer, who is a highly qualified Omega trained practicing watchmaker any day of the week.


+1


----------



## Simon-77

NoleenELT said:


> So how many 3313 movement problems have you personally experienced?


It seems that you did not read my posts. I said I've read them online and advised others to do the same. Anyway, who is with the axe right now? Obviously you have such a hatred toward the past that you are directing it toward me  it seems this 3313 issue is too personal for you.


----------



## lapisia

Simon-77 said:


> It seems that you did not read my posts. I said I've read them online and advised others to do the same. Anyway, who is with the axe right now? Obviously you have such a hatred toward the past that you are directing it toward me  it seems this 3313 issue is too personal for you.


You have contradicted yourself so much in the past few posts that I find it a little embarrassing that you are accusing others of having an agenda.

Just to make it clear, all I own is an SMP 2500d, probably a faulty movement according to the trend going around in this thread, and merely just interested in why this thread is so long. Now I know why. It's just the same thing I read about few months ago saying the SMPc's bracelet is uncomfortable and horrible. A case of one or two anecdotal stories being repeated and blown way out of proportion.


----------



## NoleenELT

Simon-77 said:


> It seems that you did not read my posts. I said I've read them online and advised others to do the same. Anyway, who is with the axe right now? Obviously you have such a hatred toward the past that you are directing it toward me  it seems this 3313 issue is too personal for you.


I DID read your posts, and quoted them. They are all contradicting each other. You yourself used the words "personal experience." Reading about something on the internet and then restating it is not personal experience.

The reason that I'm arguing is that I'd like to see discussion backed up with facts so that others and I might actually learn something, and so that others are not misinformed. I'm guessing that the OP by now has torn his hair out and left this forum because of us. Thus far, I have not seen one fact from you (or georges, who mysteriously fell off this thread). You did not advise others to read reviews online, you blatantly said that the 3313 is not a good movement.


----------



## Simon-77

NoleenELT said:


> The reason that I'm arguing is that I'd like to see discussion backed up with facts so that others and I might actually learn something, and so that others are not misinformed. I'm guessing that the OP by now has torn his hair out and left this forum because of us. Thus far, I have not seen one fact from you (or georges, who mysteriously fell off this thread). You did not advise others to read reviews online, you blatantly said that the 3313 is not a good movement.


I still do, based on OTHERS' "personal experiences" and reviews that I have read ONLINE  I am not contradicting myself, and I never said I have owned any of these movements. I don't know where did you get the idea that I am talking from my own experience. From the start I was very clear about "observations" that I made so far. I simply meant those reviews are based on some people's personal experience, not mine, but some. Anyway my English is not that good, and this discussion is getting a little out of my knowledge so I will withdraw.


----------



## oris diver

Hi All

i have recently bought a planet ocean chronograph which has a 3313 movement ,i bought new so hopefully it will be a C version . If i had read this thread 4 month's ago it would definitely have put me off buying the watch .

I don't feel i know enough about the movement to comment on the present discussion other then say ,so far so good. Might i add the chronograph is quite something ,the whole operation i mean . It's as if the movement has ceramic brakes when you stop or reset the stop watch.
First time i tried using it,i was very impressed . :-! 

It's a little worrying weather i have a watch, i can one day pass on to may son or will have to flip.Hopefully all will be good .

One last point there where teething problems with the very first 3313 movement's ,but to suggest these snags have not been resolved over the last few years seem far fetched . why would Omega continue to use this movement if there were still issues with it ,unless you are experienced watchmaker like Archer ,you should be a little more conservative with your opinions .


----------



## GaryF

Most movements have revisions made at some point. These days the internet provides such a platform for hysterical reactions that it's difficult to get an accurate picture of what's going on. When we are lucky enough to get the thoughts of one of the watchmakers dealing with things at ground-level, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would ignore his opinions in favour of the those of the desktop experts but, hey, everyone's entitled...etc.

Oris Diver, if I were you, I'd relax and enjoy your watch.

To everyone else: who honestly thinks we haven't now sufficiently covered this subject to a point where anyone reading this thread is going to be able to form an opinion? I'd say that the merits of most of the arguments are there for all to see so maybe it would be nice if we could keep to new information or angles rather than rehashing the same things.

Thanks.



oris diver said:


> Hi All
> 
> i have recently bought a planet ocean chronograph which has a 3313 movement ,i bought new so hopefully it will be a C version . If i had read this thread 4 month's ago it would definitely have put me off buying the watch .
> 
> I don't feel i know enough about the movement to comment on the present discussion other then say ,so far so good. Might i add the chronograph is quite something ,the whole operation i mean . It's as if the movement has ceramic brakes when you stop or reset the stop watch.
> First time i tried using it,i was very impressed . :-!
> 
> It's a little worrying weather i have a watch, i can one day pass on to may son or will have to flip.Hopefully all will be good .
> 
> One last point there where teething problems with the very first 3313 movement's ,but to suggest these snags have not been resolved over the last few years seem far fetched . why would Omega continue to use this movement if there were still issues with it ,unless you are experienced watchmaker like Archer ,you should be a little more conservative with your opinions .


----------



## smarty62

*Still someone alive here?*

Sometimes I was laughing loud when I was reading your posts b-). Keep fighting!

Yust wanted to say ...
... I OWN a

_Omega Speedmaster 176.0012 Cal.1045_
_Omega Seamaster AquaTerra 2803.34.37 Cal. 2500B
Omega Seamaster Prof. Chrono 2594.52 Cal 3301

_Issues
3301 movement: 
NONE since 2008 when I bought it from a friend. Keeps within COSC specs +1.5 secs per day.:-!

The watch has a story on its own. I bought it second hand from a friend who had a heavy accident. The watch was in a bad shape after the accident: Glass broken, case damaged, bezel broken, dial slightly damaged (Omega sign slightly scratched). The friends arm and hand was badly broken (not due to wearing the watch) and his brain damaged - he's recovering slowly but steady. Omega repaired the watch and we let the dial in - to remember his second chance for a new life. He wanted to sell the watch - and I took it over for about 3000 Swiss Francs.

2500B movement: 3 issues since 2003. stopped 3x suddenly without warning - all repaired by Omega at no cost.:roll:

1045 movement: 
Regular serviced all 5-7 years, keeps +4 secs per day since I bought it in 1981.

1 Issue:

Three years ago after it was serviced. The stopwatch second hand suddenly stopped working. Repaired by Omega within warranty time. :-!

I wore this watch for over 25 years day and night, swimming, during my army time (shooting etc), on my chopper ;-) etc. Now the 3301 has taken its place and I wear the 1045 only on very special occasions. The last time was on Omegamania in Geneva several years ago.

All watches are in Omega Watchwinders when not worn.

Conclusion: I would also buy a watch with actual 3313C movement .... :-d
Happy fighting...;-)


----------



## KringleKriss

smarty62 said:


> Sometimes I was laughing loud when I was reading your posts b-). Keep fighting!
> 
> Yust wanted to say ...
> ... I OWN a
> 
> _Omega Speedmaster 176.0012 Cal.1045_
> _Omega Seamaster AquaTerra 2803.34.37 Cal. 2500B
> Omega Seamaster Prof. Chrono 2594.52 Cal 3301
> 
> _Issues
> 3301 movement:
> NONE since 2008 when I bought it from a friend. Keeps within COSC specs +1.5 secs per day.:-!
> 
> The watch has a story on its own. I bought it second hand from a friend who had a heavy accident. The watch was in a bad shape after the accident: Glass broken, case damaged, bezel broken, dial slightly damaged (Omega sign slightly scratched). The friends arm and hand was badly broken (not due to wearing the watch) and his brain damaged - he's recovering slowly but steady. Omega repaired the watch and we let the dial in - to remember his second chance for a new life. He wanted to sell the watch - and I took it over for about 3000 Swiss Francs.
> 
> 2500B movement: 3 issues since 2003. stopped 3x suddenly without warning - all repaired by Omega at no cost.:roll:
> 
> 1045 movement:
> Regular serviced all 5-7 years, keeps +4 secs per day since I bought it in 1981.
> 
> 1 Issue:
> 
> Three years ago after it was serviced. The stopwatch second hand suddenly stopped working. Repaired by Omega within warranty time. :-!
> 
> I wore this watch for over 25 years day and night, swimming, during my army time (shooting etc), on my chopper ;-) etc. Now the 3301 has taken its place and I wear the 1045 only on very special occasions. The last time was on Omegamania in Geneva several years ago.
> 
> All watches are in Omega Watchwinders when not worn.
> 
> Conclusion: I would also buy a watch with actual 3313C movement .... :-d
> Happy fighting...;-)


I hope this thread revival was intended to bring Georges out of hybernation.


----------



## mharris660

*Re: Still someone alive here?*

I own the 3313 movement and a Porsche. According to the internet they are both going to blow up in a spectacular fashion!


----------



## mondodec

*Re: Still someone alive here?*

I hope you stand well clear of both when it does happen


----------



## mharris660

*Re: Still someone alive here?*



mondodec said:


> I hope you stand well clear of both when it does happen


I have a GoPro strapped to the watch and the car so I can You Tube it when it happens.


----------



## Steve Hoffman

*Re: Still someone alive here?*

Very entertaining thread, many thanks! I'm looking at a St. Moritz that has a 3313. I admit, I'm confused now!


----------



## beija

How do i know what movement version is in my 3313 Broad Arrow A,B or C?


----------



## Archer

beija said:


> How do i know what movement version is in my 3313 Broad Arrow A,B or C?


Call Omega with the serial number and ask...


----------



## refugio

auspuffturbolader said:


> _Google the technical guide for the Omega 8500 movement. Under barrel bridge lubrication the same style riveted gear is shown. *Maybe the 8500 needs to be avoided as well*.
> _





Archer said:


> *Yes it does* - for those who haven't seen it, here is a crop from the 8500 tech guide:
> ...
> Same as used on the 3313 and family, but only one instead of 3 wheels...


Al?

Just re-reading this thread (I read it back when I acquired my BA, since sold) and - if I have quoted correctly - it sound like you're saying the 8500 should be avoided. I know that wasn't the main point in your post, but did I get that wrong? Curious to know if the intervening years have changed your opinion. I searched on 8500 posts from you and didn't find much.

Care to comment?


----------



## MrSlacker

Just purchased my first Omega and it has a 3313 in it. I also owned many old BMWs which were more reliable than Toyotas... I will just enjoy the watch and see what happens


----------



## GrouchoM

My 3313C powered Aqua Terra chrono (which is currently listed on the For Sale subforum) worked flawlessly every time it was used... which was nearly half the time I owned it; it shared wrist time with my Speedy until my Blancpain arrived. The chrono feels amazing and the accuracy is easily within spec (approximately +3s/d with a low delta). 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Archer

Interesting this thread came up again - just working on a 3301, so a Swiss lever escapement version of the F. Piguet movement. 

I don't service a ton of these, because honestly they are just not as common as other chronograph movements, but I see 4 or 5 of this family in the shop each year maybe. Some are new enough to have already had the upgrades done to them, and some are old enough that none of the upgrades have been done, and some were in between. Of all those watches, only one actually had a problem related to the "unreliable" parts that are supposed to be upgraded actually failing - the column wheel operating lever had bent so the chronograph would not start/stop. To say the lack of reliability of these has been greatly exaggerated by a certain individual would be a huge understatement in my opinion.

I would suggest that the C version of the 3313 is the one you want, as it avoids the problems associated with all the 2 level co-axial escapements. I recently had someone contact me about servicing one that was a B version, and suggested he contact Omega - they are servicing and upgrading to the C version for free. Not saying that will happen in all cases, but if you have a 3313 that is not a C, it might be worth asking Omega about it.

Cheers, Al


----------



## JahIthBer

How can I tell which version is in my watch?


----------



## Radharc

refugio said:


> Al?
> 
> Just re-reading this thread (I read it back when I acquired my BA, since sold) and - if I have quoted correctly - it sound like you're saying the 8500 should be avoided. I know that wasn't the main point in your post, but did I get that wrong? Curious to know if the intervening years have changed your opinion. I searched on 8500 posts from you and didn't find much.
> 
> Care to comment?


That's not how I read that post at all -- I think he is saying "yes it does [have a stamped part]". The rest of his post makes it pretty clear that the presence of a stamped part does not make it unreliable or something to avoid. In particular, he states: "In my view the distaste for this design is completely irrational. It works well, and allows for the watch to be much thinner. I have never had to replace these parts in any watch I've serviced, so the idea that these won't hold up is really just people trying to justify their dislike of how it looks."


----------



## yuk0nxl1

I have been wearing an Olympics Broad Aarow for about a year now with no issues. (Knock on wood!) It has ran steady at +3.8 s/d. 

Never checked if it was a 3313B or 3313C. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gadget_boy

Thanks for this update, Al. I've been looking at an older BA and this is very reassuring.


----------



## iconicbonnie

NoleenELT said:


> I agree with everything said here. I had the same fears as the OP, but I did not want a run of the mill, off the shelf 7750-based movement. The Omega watches this this movement are a great value IMO, especially used. It's a special movement that (AFAIK) is not used in any other watches. Also, the chronograph actuation is extremely nice.
> 
> I have a Planet Ocean with this movement. I got mine as a gift from my wife used, and I've had it for almost a year. It's typically accurate within 1-2 seconds, and I've had zero problems with it (knock on wood). Also, all of the problem threads that I found when I was searching were for years ago. I have a theory that all of the "bad apples" have been repaired by now.
> 
> If you do some searching, there is a lot of good information about this topic, and the difference of the various "A, B, C" movements.
> 
> Agree with this from you. I got a Chronoscope Co-axial with this 3313 and it works perfectly. Time keeper so well with minimal wrong in second.


----------



## iconicbonnie

NoleenELT said:


> I agree with everything said here. I had the same fears as the OP, but I did not want a run of the mill, off the shelf 7750-based movement. The Omega watches this this movement are a great value IMO, especially used. It's a special movement that (AFAIK) is not used in any other watches. Also, the chronograph actuation is extremely nice.
> 
> I have a Planet Ocean with this movement. I got mine as a gift from my wife used, and I've had it for almost a year. It's typically accurate within 1-2 seconds, and I've had zero problems with it (knock on wood). Also, all of the problem threads that I found when I was searching were for years ago. I have a theory that all of the "bad apples" have been repaired by now.
> 
> If you do some searching, there is a lot of good information about this topic, and the difference of the various "A, B, C" movements.
> -----------
> 
> Agree with this from you. I got a Chronoscope Co-axial with this 3313 and it works perfectly. Time keeper so well with minimal wrong in second.


----------



## Robertus

Re-opening an old thread again: Just want to ask two things about a watch that was equipped with the cal. 3313, and that is the 37.5 mm cased Planet Ocean, the ref. 222.30.38.50.01.001.
First question is the production years of this model: I've seen mentioning 2005-2011 and also 2009-2011.
Second question: can the buyer be certain that the watch was equipped with the 3313C? (Also depends from the production years.) If not, from what case/movement numbers was the watch 3313C-driven?
Thanks a lot in advance!
(Please do not write pros and cons in connection with the movement, only the chance of buying it with the "C" version movement.)
Best,
Robert


----------



## NoleenELT

If you email Omega with the serial number, they can tell you which version of the movement is in it. Based on the ref #, that should be one of the later ones, which I would expect to have a C movement, but that is just my specualtion. The earlier watches had a 4 digit first part of the ref # (at least for the big size ones).

Mine said 3313B on it, but based on the year, I expected it to be a C. I emailed Omega and they said it is a C. Perhaps whatever part has that label on it was a leftover?

I'm not sure on the model years of the 37.5. Mine is the 45.5.


----------



## Capitán Mou

[QUOTE = "Cal8500, publicación: 5545194, miembro: 149221"]
Hay muchos hilos sobre el movimiento 3313 aquí. Estaba pensando en conseguir una Speedy Broad Arrow con ese movimiento hasta que leí tantas cosas negativas al respecto. Algunos tienen cosas buenas que decir al respecto, pero yo no estaba dispuesto a correr el riesgo.
[/CITA]
Recomiendo un speedmaster broad Arrow con Calibre 33 13 ya que poseo uno y es extremadamente exacto más o menos se adelanta 3 segundos por semana y nunca Ni siquiera fue a un servicio


----------

