# How good/acurate is the Omega 1120 movement?



## Longjeans (Jun 2, 2009)

whats your guys opinion on the omega 1120 movement? I really want to get a real watch with an automatic movement but it seems all the people I talk to tell me to get a quartz becuase there more acurate and less money. 

I have my heart set on a omega seamaster professional chronometer.

Anyway whats your guys thoughts on this watch.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

It is an excellent and robust movement base upon what is probably the most fully developed and widely admired movements on the planet. Th eonly real weakness is that the auto winding mechanism is a bit loud (but works extremely well) Accuracy is as good as anything else from the previous generation of watches and spares will not be a problem this century as it is such a common movement. The quartz is very good too, but if you want an auto and don't mind servicing it every five years or so (as opposed to changing a battery and seals about twice as often) then you will not regret either. The quartz is more accurate (around fifteen seconds a month as opposed to fifteen seconds a week (when running well and nicely regulated) but many prefer the interaction a mechanical offers.


----------



## slashd0t (Nov 14, 2009)

Quartz = BORING. 
Automatic 1120 = A living machine on your wrist built to perfection!


----------



## daboosh (Sep 7, 2010)

I have a 2254.50 with the cal 1120 and absolutely love it. The timekeeping on it has been well within COSC standards (currently running -2 per day) and I feel a certain pride knowing about the movement and how it works that I could never get from a quartz. To me, a quartz fails to deliver me any excitement whatsoever. I still recall when I was younger (with zero knowledge of watches) and bought my first fashion watch - $100 was a lot to me and I was very proud of it. Decided to open it up and the sheer disappointment I felt was something I'll never forget. Plastic parts and spacers and a feeling that contrasted sharply with how I felt about the looks. That was when I decided to stay away from quartzes, began taking the time to learn about watches, and developed a respect and admiration for exactly what skill goes into the creation of a mechanical. Honestly, if you get a $15 timex, take the quartz movement out and put it in an Omega case, it will keep the same time as the Omega quartz movement. However you'll never get the skill, engineering, and artistic equivalent of what you get with a 4-figure Omega automatic in a $15 watch.

Ultimately you have to decide for yourself. If you just want something to strap on that you can forget about, go with the quartz. You will save money. It's all about what a watch means to you. There is no wrong answer.










Here's what's inside:









This is an Omega quartz


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

Oh dear. 

Both are metal movements with metal gears and so on - the 1538 just happen to have a circuit board on top, the photo above makes it look much smaller but it is 10.5 ligne to the 1120's 11.5. In the same vein, the plastic movement ring in the 1538 might not look as pretty but it is a far more effective shock absorber - which matters: function or appearance? 

Both are fully serviceable and both are variations on standard ETA products which are of an equivalent standard and cost within £50 of each other to purchase. 

Both have strengths and weaknesses and both have very different characters. I chose a quartz SeMP and have never regretted it as it fills an important place in my collection. I cannot imagine selling it.


----------



## Longjeans (Jun 2, 2009)

Thx for the replys everybody..... I will definitely be getting a automatic. I also like the idea of a mechanical peice of art on my wrist 

BTW, do SMP's turn up much on the buy&sell section?

Thanks.


----------



## daboosh (Sep 7, 2010)

Sorry if my thread came off a bit...polemic. Quartzes are legitimate watches in their own rights. I was just sharing my own personal opinion on quartz v. automatic.

SMP's do actually turn up quite often Longjeans. Do some research and look for the Cal. 1120 model that you like best and I'd be willing to bet it will pop up within 3 months.

You can also try some other sites that search many watch sites for you.

WatchRecon
Elite Deal Seeker

Good luck with the hunt! Also when you get a chance, check out Youtube videos of automatic movements. They truly are works of art.


----------



## Longjeans (Jun 2, 2009)

Thanks daboosh


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

> Sorry if my thread came off a bit...polemic. Quartzes are legitimate watches in their own rights. I was just sharing my own personal opinion on quartz v. automatic.


No, I overreacted. Sorry.


----------



## georges zaslavsky (Feb 11, 2006)

the 1120 is a very good movement, 44 hours of power reserve and cosc certification, nothing to complain about.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

> the 1120 is a very good movement, 44 hours of power reserve and cosc certification, nothing to complain about.


Georges, you are definitely mellowing! I like it!


----------



## teeritz (May 27, 2006)

I'm late to the party, but I just want to say that I've had my Bond Seamaster (Cal 1120) since November 1999 and have yet to get it serviced. Wore it solid for the first six years that I had it before alternating with other watches. It runs -4 seconds per day. Well within COSC specs.


----------



## Tarby (Jun 4, 2008)

Had my SMP 2254.50 since 2008 still only losses less than half a second a day.


----------



## Spit161 (Oct 9, 2009)

There is nothing wrong with the 1120 - it's great!

cheers.


----------



## smpcollector (Apr 18, 2011)

Both my 1120 runs within COSC (-4/+6 secs/day). The one i used last the 2254.50.00 was 2 seconds behind after 4-5 days use but that can be contributed to the error canceling that happens on mechanical movements when used over longer periods.


----------



## soke (Dec 27, 2010)

I've bought one yesterday really beaten up on the outside but inside is it +2 a day(SMP electric blue)..


----------



## DIV (Oct 10, 2013)

Does anyone know the bbm (beats per minute) of the 1120 movement?


----------



## Nato060 (Oct 31, 2011)

DIV said:


> Does anyone know the bbm (beats per minute) of the 1120 movement?


Well it's 8 bps, so about 480 beats per minute. 28800 beats per hour.


----------



## CristiT (Dec 30, 2012)

1120 is not based on eta 2824-2?


----------



## DIV (Oct 10, 2013)

Here's a great article: Who Makes a Better Movement - Rolex or Omega? | Luxury Tyme: The Rolex Reference Page

Looks like most modern movements are 28,800 bph, EXCEPT the newer co-axial Omega movements which are one beat less per second, namely 7.....interesting.


----------



## CristiT (Dec 30, 2012)

Great article. It is 2892 based. Thanks


----------



## Keaman (Jul 13, 2010)

DIV said:


> Here's a great article: Who Makes a Better Movement - Rolex or Omega? | Luxury Tyme: The Rolex Reference Page
> 
> Looks like most modern movements are 28,800 bph, EXCEPT the newer co-axial Omega movements which are one beat less per second, namely 7.....interesting.


It's because when Omega fitted the co-axial escapement to the 1120 (2892-A2), they had reliability issues, so Omega slowed the beat rate down to make them perform better.
Anyway, I don't think BPH means much at all, it's just a feature of a particular movement, good or bad. Hi-Beat movement, Slow-Beat movements - what's your flavour really. Spring drives and 36K second hands do look nice though.


----------



## CristiT (Dec 30, 2012)

How do you know if a 1120 movement has the co-axial escapement or not?


----------



## Vlciudoli (Feb 24, 2013)

'Co Axial' inscription on the dial?


----------



## Undersköterskan (Nov 4, 2006)

CristiT said:


> How do you know if a 1120 movement has the co-axial escapement or not?


The Omega caliber 1120 is not a co-axial movement, it was introduced in 1996 and comes with the industry standard swiss lever escapement, the major difference in comparison with a top-grade ETA 2892-A2 is it's modified winding mechanism (here's where the extra two jewels come in, the ETA 2892-A2 has 21 jewels while the Omega caliber 1120 has 23).

The Omega caliber 1120 with co-axial escapement and a free sprung balance is the beloved Omega caliber 2500 introduced in 1999 (with an additional four jewels for the co-axial escapement, raising the total number to 27 jewels) and it is still in production as the Omega caliber 2500D with reduced beat-rate and a three-level escapewheel.

As to the accuracy of the 1120 I'd say it's excellent. As Matt already pointed out; this is a truly tried and tested movement, modified into perfection by Omega and it comes with top-quality components. In comparison to the 8500 however, I'd give the notch to the 8500 considering it has a more stable free sprung balance, the advantages of co-axial technology over the long term and a more sturdy balance bridge etc.

Regards
Undersköterskan


----------



## MichaelE (May 27, 2007)

Never had a problem with my 2531.80 SMP.


----------



## CristiT (Dec 30, 2012)

Undersköterskan, excelent description. Thanks!


----------



## CristiT (Dec 30, 2012)

I come with another silly question: 1120 is still in production?


----------



## joeh4384 (Aug 14, 2012)

Dont think it is but many other makers use the 2892. Omega uses the 2500d which is the coaxial version instead.


----------



## iam7head (Dec 16, 2010)

Had three, the last 1128(GMT version of 1120) ran about 49hour+ before stopped and average about 3 second +

very stable movement, very cost effective, almost every watchmaker can service them without much fuzz.


----------



## iam7head (Dec 16, 2010)

mosfetaus said:


> It's because when Omega fitted the co-axial escapement to the 1120 (2892-A2), they had reliability issues, so Omega slowed the beat rate down to make them perform better.
> Anyway, I don't think BPH means much at all, it's just a feature of a particular movement, good or bad. Hi-Beat movement, Slow-Beat movements - what's your flavour really. Spring drives and 36K second hands do look nice though.


the version A 2500 is running at 28800 with 10 years warranty, but it suffered from stoppage issue.

The slower beat is noticeable if you look closely, I have my share of slow runner and it can tell the current co-ax right away.

not a negative thing per se but it's there.


----------



## gtuck (Feb 3, 2012)

While a higher beat rate may have an inherent advantage regarding accuracy, I doubt it makes a difference on the wrist. I have a Tourby Deck Watch with a hand wound 6498-2 top movement running at 21600 bps. It gains less than 1s/d and maintains that accuracy over about 48 hours before beginning to slow as the power reserve is exhausted.


----------



## LodeRunner (Feb 17, 2013)

The accuracy of the 1120 has a lot more to do with how the watch is adjusted than how "good" that movement it has. I own four Omegas, one with an 1120 movement, two with 2500 movements (C and D), and an 8500. The 1120 is actually the most accurate by far, about .5 seconds fast per day, which is remarkably good for a mechanical watch. And that watch was made in 2003 (an SMP 2254.50), has had at least two prior owners, and has had a much tougher life than the others. The least accurate of the bunch is actually my pampered AT8500, which runs five seconds fast per day. My point is that an Omega 1120-based movement can be as accurate or more than mechanical watches costing much more or sporting the latest "cool" and modern technologies.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## picklepossy (Feb 2, 2009)

Will always be the best movement Omega has ever produced. Nothing can and will touch it ever. It's simple and a true work horse. All 3 with 1120 movements.


----------



## Rogi (Mar 31, 2011)

It was also by far, the most price effective. I love my 8500 but 1120 has a soft spot for me  with it my wallet was medium empty vs the 8500s empty + loans  hehehe


----------



## CristiT (Dec 30, 2012)

I love the bracelet on the bond watch.
the bond has also 1120 movement?


----------



## LodeRunner (Feb 17, 2013)

CristiT said:


> I love the bracelet on the bond watch.
> the bond has also 1120 movement?


Yes, the older pre-coaxial ones (e.g. you can usually tell by the lack of "co-axial" printing on the dial) use the 1120. Co-axial bonds use the 2500.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

You must have read a different article to me. I thought it was a load of old bilge.

I'm tempted to try and dig out M4tt's debunking of it from the archives.



CristiT said:


> Great article. It is 2892 based. Thanks


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

gtuck said:


> While a higher beat rate may have an inherent advantage regarding accuracy


It's only "inherent" if both movements are the same. The fact is that the co-axial functions better at a lower beat rate than it would at a higher one. George Daniels insisted (and was ignored by Omega in the beginning) that it was so and it took a little time and a revision before Omega accepted that the world's greatest watchmaker might actually know how to set up the escapement he invented.

We've been over this a lot on here but the flaw (or the main one) in the Holbrook article is the poor logic.

High beat rates were traditionally used to improve accuracy. Therefore a movement with a lower beat rate must be less accurate than one with a high beat rate.
It's a little like saying that superchargers were traditionally used to make cars go faster. Therefore, a modern car without a supercharger must be slower than an old Blower Bentley.

Things move on and traditional methods and solutions are not always appropriate for newer technologies.


----------



## CristiT (Dec 30, 2012)

GaryF said:


> You must have read a different article to me. I thought it was a load of old bilge.
> 
> I'm tempted to try and dig out M4tt's debunking of it from the archives.


From that article:

_The 1120, which is of course a modified ETA 2892, uses the Etachron adjustment screw, which is a less elegant design (but cheaper to manufacture) offers less control and precision over accuracy adjustment than a traditional design of having adjustment screws on the balance wheel, which is the preferred method of controlling accuracy among high end watch brands and not just Rolex._


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

CristiT said:


> From that article:
> 
> _The 1120, which is of course a modified ETA 2892, uses the Etachron adjustment screw, which is a less elegant design (but cheaper to manufacture) offers less control and precision over accuracy adjustment than a traditional design of having adjustment screws on the balance wheel, which is the preferred method of controlling accuracy among high end watch brands and not just Rolex._


Are you saying that not everything in the article is bilge? If so, you are right. Some parts of it are perfectly sensible.

But then even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


----------



## CristiT (Dec 30, 2012)

GaryF said:


> Are you saying that not everything in the article is bilge? If so, you are right. Some parts of it are perfectly sensible.
> 
> But then even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


You are right but you can't fool yourself that the clock is ticking.

Do you think there are lots of nonsenses in that article?


----------



## HRC-E.B. (Dec 18, 2012)

GaryF said:


> It's only "inherent" if both movements are the same. The fact is that the co-axial functions better at a lower beat rate than it would at a higher one. George Daniels insisted (and was ignored by Omega in the beginning) that it was so and it took a little time and a revision before Omega accepted that the world's greatest watchmaker might actually know how to set up the escapement he invented.
> 
> We've been over this a lot on here but the flaw (or the main one) in the Holbrook article is the poor logic.
> 
> ...


If the co-axial works better at a lower beat rate, does that mean that the 9300 movement, which runs at 28 800, is compromised in any way compared to the slower-beat 8500 it is based on? Why did Omega have the 9300 running at 28 800, if that's less ideal?


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

It's possible that it is indeed a compromise to accommodate the fact that the 9300 is meant to measure elapsed time and that the Speedmaster Pro's lower beat-rate has been the source of occasional complaints on here and elsewhere.

I don't know how much of a problem the higher beat-rate ever really was (there are members who treasure their 2500A-powered Aqua Terras) and I suspect that we never really will. It has been speculated that it was just related to torque and the starting of the escapement from dead. Mr Daniels was adamant that the lower rate was to be preferred and that's certainly good enough for me in my ignorance. If the differences were marginal, the benefit of having a movement which wears less over time might have been a significant factor. Many of the truly hand-made, super-high-end watches use lower beat-rates because, by virtue of being lovingly hand-poised and regulated, they can be accurate without resorting to higher beat-rates and the consequent increased rate of wear.

Which brings me back to the logical flaw in the article. Just because a high beat-rate has been a traditional method gaining accuracy, it does not automatically follow that a movement must run at a high rate to be accurate. Certainly the 8500 has quickly gained a reputation for stability and accuracy way beyond most Swiss lever movements running at 28,800 bph. The proof of the pudding&#8230;etc.



HRC-E.B. said:


> If the co-axial works better at a lower beat rate, does that mean that the 9300 movement, which runs at 28 800, is compromised in any way compared to the slower-beat 8500 it is based on? Why did Omega have the 9300 running at 28 800, if that's less ideal?


----------



## HRC-E.B. (Dec 18, 2012)

Thanks for the reply, Gary. 

I was wondering about the reasons behind the higher beat reat on the 9300 vs the 8500, given that it's still an odd fraction of a second for a chronograph anyway (4th of a second). So, in that sense, it's not really an improvement over the slower 21 600 beats of the Speedmaster Pro. Given how well the 8500 seems to work at a lower rate, I'd love for someone to explain why they chose to accelerate the rate on the 9300 and hope it doesn't mean anything bad in terms of longevity, durability and reliability.


----------



## WatchLuc (Aug 7, 2016)

I own since 1994 an Omega Seamaster Diver after I bought many "throw away" cheap quartz watches. I am an engineer and the thought of an automatic precise piece of mechanics appeared to me very much at those days. I am also a lover of extreme sports, including scuba diving, so my choice was the Omega. 

I can confirm to you: it is a very robust watch able to keep time in extreme conditions. In fact, I used it whilst scuba diving but also during snowboarding, skiing, wind and kitesurfing, the lot. In fact, I had a traffic accident recently during which I was smashed to the turmac ground. I broke 8 ribs, the case and bezel of the watch were heavy damaged/scratched but the movement was still working.

Indeed, the autwinding mechanics is somewhat loud if you put your ear to the watch, but during normal wearing it is not noticeable.

I am not a movement specialist but from other sources I understand that the movement is an OEM product from a movement manufacturer. Neither the specs are high-end with 18000 bph. Still the watch is Swiss COSC certified and in practice the watch is reasonable accurate, even under my user conditions. 

I am very proud on my "James Bond" Omega Seamaster diver. It deserves that name without doubt.


----------



## mjoranga (Jul 19, 2015)

Well, I've own my 2254 for about 5 months now and after it was serviced and regulated I can honestly say that it's gaining about 2 to 3 seconds per week... That's because I know that if I'm wearing it all day the time will be stable and won't change much but when I rest it dial up, It will gain about 1 to 2 second over night but if I rest it crown up... It will loose about 1 second... So I tried to balance the resting position when not in use and pretty much it's bang on...

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jake_D (May 2, 2016)

WatchLuc said:


> I own since 1994 an Omega Seamaster Diver after I bought many "throw away" cheap quartz watches. I am an engineer and the thought of an automatic precise piece of mechanics appeared to me very much at those days. I am also a lover of extreme sports, including scuba diving, so my choice was the Omega.
> 
> I can confirm to you: it is a very robust watch able to keep time in extreme conditions. In fact, I used it whilst scuba diving but also during snowboarding, skiing, wind and kitesurfing, the lot. In fact, I had a traffic accident recently during which I was smashed to the turmac ground. I broke 8 ribs, the case and bezel of the watch were heavy damaged/scratched but the movement was still working.
> 
> ...


Daaaaang.

I appreciate the 1120 because any competent watchsmith can service them, which makes it invaluably more valuable to me than 100% proprietary movements.


----------

