# Which is the overall best Omega automatic calibre?



## Anon

My knowledge of the whole Omega automatic calibres since the founding date of the company is pretty limited but I would like to know your opinion on which calibre you think is the overall best. Key factors for justifying your choice would be:

1. Accuracy
2. Consistency in accurate timing
3. COSC certification
4. Ability to withstand shocks, hits, vibrations, extreme temps, G's, magnetic fields etc.
5. Visual appeal
6. Servicing costs
7. Frequency of servicing
8. Other factors you may find significant


----------



## MSNWatch

I am a huge vintage omega fan but for the best, I'd have to say the new cal. 8500 - in my opinion, it can hold its own against anything out there today. While it may not have the hand finishing of offerings from patek and lange, it is more accurate and consistent than those movements at a fraction of the cost.


----------



## GTTIME

MSNWatch said:


> I am a huge vintage omega fan but for the best, I'd have to say the new cal. 8500 - in my opinion, it can hold its own against anything out there today. While it may not have the hand finishing of offerings from patek and lange, it is more accurate and consistent than those movements at a fraction of the cost.


If people aren't being nostalgic that is the only answer I would expect to see.


----------



## M4tt

The Cal 8500 is a fine movement, but I really don't think that it is such an obvious hands down winner. As I have said many times before, every movement is a series of compromises and, as such, it is hard to compare one set of compromises with another. The 8500 certainly has the finest escapement that Omega have ever made, but in standard trim it is neither poised nor regulated with the care that could take full advantage of either the escapement, the FSB or the hairspring. However, we can get an idea of how good it could be from its predecessor, the Cal.2500.

The accuracy that the 2500 is capable of is the stuff of myth. As it stands, I know of a couple of 2500 movements that, after careful fettling, can easily meet quartz standards of accuracy. As yet, I haven't heard any tales of 8500 being regulated to this sort of level, but given the balance, spring and escapement, it is only a matter of time. As it stands, the 2500 has a strong case in its own right as it has actually proven that it can be fettled to far greater stability and accuracy than mere COSC. More to the point, the 2500, with the 'cockroach' genes of the 2892 is comparatively easy to fix and fettle and has a thirty year heritage of indestructibility. However, the purist would argue that it isn't really an Omega movement, merely an Omega escapement.

However, returning to 'quartz like accuracy' it is easily forgotten that, in the old 'observatory' accuracy competitions, the Cal.30T2:










could also perform this feat in the forties. In slightly more ordinary trim it was, and is, about as accurate as the current 'standard' 8500 even with an ordinary escapement with a mere Breguet Overcoil. However one difference is that the 30T2 can be easily regulated at home without paying £300 for a special tool.

The 30T2 is one movement that has stood the test of time. It may not be automatic, but it is rugged, robust and handsome. It is also cheap and easy to service, even today. It is one of Omega's calibres that has undeniably earned the label 'legendary'. (Not least by being the movement in several of the RAF's finest watches.)

http://www.ninanet.net/watches/others09/Mediums/momega1894.html

Is it a better movement than the 8500? despite lacking the Coaxial Escapement which, as I have argued before, is the best thing to happen to horology in three hundred years, the 30T2 combines elegance, simplicity and accuracy. The Cal.8500 exhibits two of these but, to my mind, does have the feel of several complex solutions looking for a problem that isn't there.

However, I have merely compared the 8500, 2500 and 30T2 as a rhetorical device.

The reason is simple: there is an obvious contender for Omega's overall best movement, and that is the Cal.564 / 565. I choose the 564 in particular for the simple reason that they have a quick set date, a convenience that the earlier 5xx lacked. The fact is, pretty well any five (or seven) series Omega has the right to be described as legendary.

http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&0&2uswk&Omega_562

From a personal point of view I prefer the 751 and the 565 for the simple reason that they are almost identical and yet still rationally affordable. So, why would I say that the 564 is the overall best movement Omega have ever made, and how do I defend myself from the assertion that I am simply being nostalgic?

First, it is simply beautiful:










Second, it is easy to regulate. the Swan Neck regulation system is both lovely to look at, devastatingly effective and simple to use.










Third, it is simple to repair; an elegant, no nonsense design which is precisely as complex as it needs to be and no more. The regulator (above) exemplifies this; remove the swan neck and you are left with a simple 'stick' regulation. All the Swan Neck regulator is is a spring (the swan neck) and a screw. The spring pushes the 'stick' firmly against the screw ensuring that any adjustment that is made to the screw is transmitted directly to the stick. Thus a simple watchmaker's screwdriver is all that is needed to make incredibly fine adjustment. Simple, beautiful and _very _precise.









Did I mention that it is beautiful?

Fourth: while, when set up correctly it can be quite astonishingly accurate, the fact is that the 5xx movements flew through COSC in quite astonishing numbers over the years they were produced. even today you can find movements that have seen little in the way of love but are still stunningly accurate even before the service in which you discover just how remarkable their accuracy was in the light of their condition. This is a watch that can transcend abuse (even if it shouldn't).

Fifth, The power reserve. One of the selling points of the 8500. The 8500 uses two barrels to achieve a sixty hour power reserve, which is rather similar to the Favre Leuba 'Twin Power' movement of the sixties. However, the 5xx uses a simple single barrel and achieves a fifty hour reserve by simply being very efficient.

Finally, the 5xx is the movement in most of the great watches of the golden age. From the Pie Pan Connies to the Sm300, this was, and remains, the movement of champions.

So, is it a better movement than the 8500? Well, it is definitely easier and cheaper to service. In standard trim it is as accurate and stable and, like the 8500 it can be fettled to a far higher level of stability and accuracy as it proved repeatedly in observatory chronometer competitions. (to be fair I am sure that an 8500 with similar preparation would beat it, but by how much?)

The 5xx is proven over a lifetime of service, it is very hard to kill. I know which I would rather have fall off my wrist onto a hard floor: the 5xx would be less likely to break and far, far less to fix if it did. Likewise, a skipped service or two would be far cheaper to remedy and, on past evidence, less likely to cause a problem: Omega really took case hardening seriously then. Seriously in a way they don't seem to any more.

The aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. I think they are both lovely, but the 565 is an ungilded lilly. I prefer less make up myself.

As for servicing costs, watchmakers like working on them and parts are still reasonably plentiful and comfortably cheap. In my experience a simple service is about a quarter of the cost of a service on the 8500. Any parts needed will, I suspect, merely add to the difference.

The fact is that, there are a lot of 5xx movements left around. they just resist entropy rather well. Firstly they are tough little buggers and secondly they inspire their owners to keep them going, like an old, but well loved, pet.

There is one final factor. For about the price of an 8500 engined watch you could conceivably buy an immaculate example of a Piepan Connie, a Bulls Eye Dynamic and a Sm300 with enough change left to buy an ex RAF Omega 30T2 (as worn in the Battle of Britain). That is, a series of legendary movements in a series of legendary watches.

Maybe, in fifty years time, you might be able to say all of this about the 8500.

Maybe...

*edit*

And don't forget, I didn't even mention the Cal.1040!


----------



## mdeasy

I have a 1040 in my recently acquired 70's TV Dial Seamaster "jedi" and recently brought it to my watch guy for servicing who recommended I just leave it alone. If I wear it every day and leave it face up overnight on the dresser it keeps time to within +3 secs a week and without the chrono running has a power reserve of about 30-35 hours.
On the downside Omega quote approx. $750 for a service


----------



## DesertDog

This whole post is beyond my knowledge (especially regarding vintage movements). 

But as a layman, I can definitely say that I can't wait to get hold of watch powered by the 8500... Especially with a display back!


----------



## GTTIME

M4tt - I was hoping you would respond with such a robust answer!

As an owner of two 2500c movements I am once again pleased to see that your opinion still stands.


----------



## M4tt

> As an owner of two 2500c movements I am once again pleased to see that your opinion still stands.


It certainly does. My firm belief is that anyone who owns a 2500 should get it fettled properly to draw out the perfection lurking within! However, I would sell my soul, or at least JoeK's soul (sorry Joe) for a 751 or 1570 with a coaxial escapement...


----------



## ddatta

M4tt said:


> ... Secondly, it is easy to regulate. the Swan Neck regulation system is both lovely to look at, devastatingly effective and simple to use. ...
> 
> ... The fact is that, there are a lot of 5xx movements left around. they just resist entropy rather well. Firstly they are tough little buggers and secondly they insipire their owners to keep them going, like an old pet. ...


Not that anything that Matt writes ever needs it, but I can certainly vouch for that.

I have one with a 562 movement and I could take apart (and put together :-d ) this one and have it running to about 10 seconds a day. This was AFTER the service guy at a dealership told me that it needs to have the balance and the spring replaced! I refused and decided to see what I could do with the original material. It had been lying unattended and quite dead for over 15 years when I got my hands on it.

Currently it runs consistently and precisely at this pace. This is WITHOUT good professional attention! At one time it made me wonder what all the COSC fuss was all about. (But we shall let that one rest... )

Matt, your post inspires me to see what I can get out of this movement. And by the sound of it, and the fact that it is so consistent, I am certain to get it very very accurate indeed.

Thanks


----------



## Anon

Will this new 8500 calibre be used in the current collections or is Omega planning on releasing new ones?


----------



## Hippocampus

I've seen (and owned) some really shot looking Seamasters with cal. 501s in them just got up and started ticking and keeping time, which I thought was pretty remarkable. Love my cal. 505 Pie Pan too.

I have a soft spot for the ultra thin cal. 711/ 712 for some reason. It's just... neat b-) The cal. 750/ 751/ 752 day dates with the quick change date are nice too...

Can't go wrong with any of the 10xx movements either.


----------



## M4tt

> Will this new 8500 calibre be used in the current collections or is Omega planning on releasing new ones?


Don't ask me.

*edit* Or to put it another way: if someone goes to the trouble of writing well over a thousand illustrated words answering _your _question, it is considered rude to ignore it.


----------



## Guest

Not an automatic but my forty year old Omega 'Hummers" certainly do a decent job of timekeeping . Parts are still available and service is reasonable. The sensuous second hand is frosting on the cake. As smooth as silk.


----------



## tomee

its early, but i say 8500


----------



## Mystro

I think you need some significant time to really come up with a Omega answer. 10 years or longer might be a good starting point to see about the durability of a new movement.


----------



## SpringDriven

Anon said:


> Will this new 8500 calibre be used in the current collections or is Omega planning on releasing new ones?


New Calibers, or new watches with the Cal. 8500?

The talk is that Omega wants to use the Cal. 8500 (and variations of it, like GMT, Annual Calendar etc...) in all their watches.

As far as new watch collections... Only Swatch Group knows that...

P.S. I believe that the Cal. 8500 reads to be and has the potential to be the best Automatic from Omega to date, until the next best thing comes along. Other then that, several great Calibers have already been mentioned, and the Cal. 2500 is more then likely through advances in machining and the added benefit of a more efficient escapement to be the current top champion, but I defer to Matt's 5xx discussion. The Cal. 8500 is set to take over, especially when the Silicon Balance Spring and maybe later the entire escapement becomes a standard feature. (Less friction, less wear, no problems with magnetic or temperature variations...)


----------



## Runitout

M4tt said:


> Don't ask me.
> 
> *edit* Or to put it another way: if someone goes to the trouble of writing well over a thousand illustrated words answering _your _question, it is considered rude to ignore it.


Thanks for sharing your knowledge about both vintage and modern Omega movements on this forum, M4tt. They're informative, well written, and very much appreciated!

Cheers


----------



## EL

Anon said:


> Will this new 8500 calibre be used in the current collections or is Omega planning on releasing new ones?


Hey Anon,

I thought you decided a few weeks ago that you only wanted to wear quartz watches. Why the sudden interest in the automatic movements? I thought you deemed them unreliable? :think:

Regards,
Eric


----------



## ulackfocus

As stated above, M4tt's posts don't need any confirmation.

...but I'll do it anyway! The 564 is the cream of that series (55x, 56x, 75x) and until the 8500 displaces it with a few decades of stats on consistency it will stand as my favorite. Even it's immediate predecessor - the 591 - is capable of great accuracy. I have one in a Seamaster from 1960 that is WELL within COSC specs at +3 seconds per day with no wild swings from positional error.


----------



## FlyPenFly

M4tt said:


> Don't ask me.
> 
> *edit* Or to put it another way: if someone goes to the trouble of writing well over a thousand illustrated words answering _your _question, it is considered rude to ignore it.


I found it to be a great read.


----------



## DesertDog

FlyPenFly said:


> I found it to be a great read.


+1 on that. M4tt certainly knows his stuff and is generous in sharing his knowledge. Thanks for that!

I'll be the first to admit that I sometimes ignore or dismiss the vintage stuff around here. That's not because I don't think it is cool. But because of the limited availability and my uncertainty about how find/buy authentic vintage watches, I simply pay less attention than I should. But M4tt write-up is a superb argument to pay more attention to vintage pieces because of the quality of the automatic movements.


----------



## M4tt

Thanks to all who have been so kind about my opinions, however I wasn't complaining about not being appreciated, I was merely irked by the OP's behaviour.

Ultimately this is a bit of a 'Karma' number, as i suspect that there will not be many jumping to answer his questions with more than a couple of lines in future.

Ultimately the health of any forum comes down to the degree that people are prepared to put the effort in. When too many take and not enough give a forum slowly dies. I'm rather fond of this forum and so try to put a bit in when I have a spare moment. At the moment I don't really have the time to treat WUS Omega as a social venue but I still value those who can be bothered to ask and answer good questions in the best spirit.

Talking of Spirits, here's another beautiful old movement that would cost a fortune new today but that can be picked up for less than a good pizza.


----------



## DesertDog

M4tt said:


> Talking of Spirits, here's another beautiful old movement that would cost a fortune new today but that can be picked up for less than a good pizza.


Where would one find a movement like this? What sort of watch would it be in? Do you get most of your on ebay, or are there other more reliable and consistent sources?


----------



## DaBaeker

Come on M4tt-a bit more self awareness please? You have a brilliant mind and a sharp wit that is, as far as I can tell, pretty much unrivaled here. (sorry-no lack of genius from many forum members here but m4 possesses a slightly twisted savoir faire that is just..well, uniquely his). I get the "give and take" part and g-d knows your answers are complete, precise, and well constructed. But you know you can be a bit intimidating for - lets say-someone without your literary skill and deep appreciation for sardonic wit? 

Maybe I'm just having a karmic flashback to a long ago post where I, a relative newb, left my humility in the can and tried to go toe-to-toe with equal flair and aplomb with you. And I utterly failed.

I have come to appreciate your most intensive and thorough posts as not only studious and very generous but often imbued with tiny universal flashes of brilliance. Like the starry case-back of a constellation. But then it is always a bit lonely at the top. You have to forgive the little folks. This forum would be all the more poor with only short concise posts from you. Leave those for those in need of a good editor.


----------



## jikan ga nai

M4tt and others,

Can I take it that the glowing comments about c.2500 would equally apply to c.2403? My understanding is that the only difference is the exclusion of the date wheel. Are they otherwise equals in reliability and accuracy?


----------



## Nicopetromac

M4tt I would like to thank you for enlighting us with your information and knowledge. Thank you for educating me with automatic Omegas. That was truly awesome!!!!!

Nico;-)


----------



## aardvarkbark

Nicopetromac said:


> M4tt I would like to thank you for enlighting us with your information and knowledge. Thank you for educating me with automatic Omegas. That was truly awesome!!!!!
> 
> Nico;-)


While most who post here are current model owners, I believe M4tt is exclusive vintage. He, Desmond (mondodec), and a few others can always be counted on for excellent vintage guidance. Keep coming back...you'll learn a lot more from M4tt's posts that are enlightening, entertaining, and may periodically have nothing to do with watches.

BTW, I agree with his 564/751 pick.


----------



## M4tt

> While most who post here are current model owners, I believe M4tt is exclusive vintage.


I wouldn't say I was _exclusively _vintage, in Omega, I have a Perpetual Calender Constellation Double Eagle, an Aqua Terra, a Seamaster Professional, and a 2006 Speedmaster. Outside of Omega, this 'dinner plate' of a Seiko 'tool watch' is currently getting a lot of wrist time and has knocked the 34mm AirKing off the wrist currently:










It has the all new (and rather splendid) Seiko 4R15 movement - which I am enjoying just as much as the 6r15 and sports a a style that is brashly modern in a rather attention grabbing way while clearly giving the impression of being very hard to break!










Vintage, new, quartz, hummer, handwind. You name it, I like it!:-! Thanks for the compliments, but I'm not sure I deserve them, I just like watches!


----------



## Imni

I think this is a great thread so a bump is appropriate.

I wonder why no one is calling for the cal. 321? Is it because it is not seen as an Omega movement but a Lemania one? Also, what is the thoughts about the cal. 1040?

In my collection I have a 321, a 1040 and a cal. 1620 (quartz, late 70s) so that is why I am asking.


----------



## M4tt

> I think this is a great thread so a bump is appropriate.
> 
> I wonder why no one is calling for the cal. 321? Is it because it is not seen as an Omega movement but a Lemania one?


Umm no, it's because it is _handwind_...



> Also, what is the thoughts about the cal. 1040?


Personally I think it is one of the best and most underrated calibres from Lemania. I am always astonished that people prefer the 5100.



> In my collection I have a 321, a 1040 and a cal. 1620 (quartz, late 70s) so that is why I am asking.


That's an impressively focussed Speedmaster collection (or not!)


----------



## Imni

M4tt said:


> Umm no, it's because it is _handwind_...
> 
> Personally I think it is one of the best and most underrated calibres from Lemania. I am always astonished that people prefer the 5100.
> 
> That's an impressively focussed Speedmaster collection (or not!)


Sorry. Forgot that the thread deals with automatics.

Could you please explain why the 1040 is an underestimated movement?

Regarding my collection I think that I include a wide range of the name Speedmaster, considering that I only have three watches (105.003, Mk III and a 185.0005 in gold filled.)


----------



## k_sze

I came across this thread while Googl'ing for "best omega calibre". I saw M4tt's post and decided to check out the corresponding vintage models at Omega's official vintage database. However, there is a problem: among the calibres that M4tt mentioned, the 1040 is the only one with one exact match in the "Calibre number" filter of the search page. All the other ones have multiple similar entries. To see what I mean, click on "SHOW MORE FILTERS" on that page, and you'll see a drop-down box for "Calibre number". Inside, there are multiple entries that seem related. I have grouped them by apparent relationship below:


564:
561 / 564 
564 

565:
562 / 565 
563 / 565 
565 

30 T2:
30 SC T2 
30 T2 
30 T2 PC AM 
30 T2 RG 
30 T2 RS 
30 T2 SC 
30 T2 SC RG 


So I have 3 questions:

How are they related, if at all? E.g. between "561 / 564" and "564". 
Which ones are the "correct" ones that I should look for? 
Similarly, when you talk about the newer 8500 calibre, do you mean only the exact 8500 or do you include 8501, 8507, 8520, 8521? Again, how, if at all, are they related? 

Cheers.


----------



## M4tt

> How are they related, if at all? E.g. between "561 / 564" and "564".


They are families of movements that share the same basic design and some spares compatibility (most of the time). The 30T2 (thirty series family) goes all the way into a new numbering system and so is also the 26x and the 28x. Personally I'd say that the 285 and the 268 are the best of the series as they have all of the improvements,including a modern glycadur balance, but retain the peerless Breguet overcoil hairsping. I have a couple of these and they are as stable as almost anything made today. Try to get one with a screwback case and you will not be dissapointed.



> Which ones are the "correct" ones that I should look for?


That really depends what you are looking for and what you want to pay. The chronometer versions will usually command the premium as will complications like date. Personally if you are looking for a decent every day watch and don't know too much I'd go for a Geneve without a date everytime. They are simple to fix, not faked or frankened very often and have the same splendid movements as their pricier cousins.


Similarly, when you talk about the newer 8500 calibre, do you mean only the exact 8500 or do you include 8501, 8507,


> 8520, 8521? Again, how, if at all, are they related?






> Same family again.
> 
> I hope this helps.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

M4tt is correct on all counts


----------



## M4tt

georges zaslavsky said:


> M4tt is correct on all counts


Thank God for that, I've been worrying whether I was or not for the last three years. Finally I am at peace.


----------



## KringleKriss

M4tt said:


> Thank God for that, I've been worrying whether I was or not for the last three years. Finally I am at peace.


That would explain the dark circles under your eyes ;-)


----------



## Spazz27

Hello everyone,

New to this forum, but love to learn about vintage Omega's.

Was happy to learn so much so far and eager to learn more 

But my question today is what about the 550 movement?

What is the general consensus on that movement in the same terms of the discussion above/so far? Is it "as good" as the 56x series, or is it clearly "inferior", etc... and I ask because I have an opportunity to buy one from around 1970 (still trying to confirm date) and would like to learn a bit more about before I commit.

Thanks in advance!

Anthony


----------



## watchaddict00

FlyPenFly said:


> I found it to be a great read.


+1. Great info and thanks

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## 6omega

I have a '64 cal 550. Look up Desmond's (mondodec) website, he wrote some articles about that series.

As far as I know (and someone correct me if necessary) it's a very venerable caliber that led to the development of some of the classic Omega calibers. It may rank slightly below the more famous 56x, if I'm not mistaken.



Spazz27 said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> New to this forum, but love to learn about vintage Omega's.
> 
> Was happy to learn so much so far and eager to learn more
> 
> But my question today is what about the 550 movement?
> 
> What is the general consensus on that movement in the same terms of the discussion above/so far? Is it "as good" as the 56x series, or is it clearly "inferior", etc... and I ask because I have an opportunity to buy one from around 1970 (still trying to confirm date) and would like to learn a bit more about before I commit.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Anthony


----------



## M4tt

The 55x series is simply the 56x series without a date. As such there is less to go wrong but everything I said about the 56x is true of the 55x (and for that matter, of the 75x which is basically a 56x with a day date. Obviously the 24 jewel versions are the ones to go for. 

Personally I still prefer handwind watches as there is even less to go wrong. 

IMHO, the best watch movement ever built is the Omega 268 and 285. Just because.


----------



## Zaskar20

M4tt, I've read this thread for the first time, over the last couple of days, with some enthusiasm over your comments on the 2500 movement. Thanks for that.

I would like to know the details of any watchmaker that you could recommend who could cast their expert eye over my watch, with this movement, in order to get it running 'sweeter' than it already does. 

I live in the Southwest UK.

Feel free to PM me details if you deem more appropriate, but I am sure other members would also welcome this information.

Many thanks in anticipation.


----------



## Imni

M4tt said:


> The 55x series is simply the 56x series without a date. As such there is less to go wrong but everything I said about the 56x is true of the 55x (and for that matter, of the 75x which is basically a 56x with a day date. Obviously the 24 jewel versions are the ones to go for.
> 
> Personally I still prefer handwind watches as there is even less to go wrong.
> 
> IMHO, the best watch movement ever built is the Omega 268 and 285. Just because.


How would you compare the 285/286 to the Longines 12.68 (N, Z or SC) or the Lemania 3000/3040/3050/3060?

I have been looking at the Longines 12.68 and the finish is remarkable. Also, I just bought an old Lemania vith a 3000 and that movement is also greatly finished.


----------



## Spazz27

M4tt said:


> IMHO, the best watch movement ever built is the Omega 268 and 285. Just because.


Wow, thats a great endorsement.... but do be sure I understood you correctly: when you say the "best watch movement ever", did you mean within Omega? Or "best ever" considering all makes and all models?

Thanks again!

a.


----------



## AAMC

Caliber 9605


----------



## Fire99

I think everyone here can endorse how great their calibre is, which only shows how Omega has made some great time pieces throughout the years and will continue to make great watches. I myself only own two Seamaster's, both of which are 2500D calibre's. My PO is a year old and keeps a consistant +2sec a day where my newer Seamaster was purchased on Feb. 23 of this year, has not gained or lost a second in that entire time! No word of a lie! I couldn't ask for anything more accurate!


----------



## Imni

AAMC said:


> Caliber 9605


More info on that one please.


----------



## AAMC

Imni said:


> More info on that one please.


As far as I get it it's the best of both "worlds" the 9300 it's the high-end Chrono caliber...the 9605 gets the GMT complication on top of the 9300...


----------



## OzO

Cal 565


----------



## JV1112

Very interesting and informative thread. I have been hesitant to consider vintage watches but the info here is making me rethink that. Thank you very much to all the posters, especially M4tt, for such thorough and thoughtful postings.


----------



## Imni

OzO said:


> Cal 565


Better than 564 and 752?


----------



## OzO

Imni said:


> Better than 564 and 752?


Absolutely! Because I own one (yes, very biased answer ;-)) :-!


----------



## mr_macgee

How do I find out which auto's 55X and the 56X are the chronometer versions, adjusted to five positions? Is there a model number that identifies them as chronometers or ? Are the 24 jewels versions the same thing?

Thanks to the ones who have posted (M4tt..etc), it's been a great read and very informative.

Cheers


----------



## Spazz27

If I am not mistaken, the 564 was certified. The 565 was not, but not because it wouldn't meet the standard, but because it just wasn't sent in. 

In fact, I thought I read in the forum that given the relationship of the variations of the 56x series, that most likely they'd all pass. 

But again, I'm not 100% sure, just going by memory...


----------



## mr_macgee

Thanks for the reply, 

It's interesting that the more complicated movements of 56x with the date option is mentioned and referred more often than the 55x's for accuracy, you would think the non date movt. would more be reliable due being less complicated. My observations maybe totally wrong and like you said that Omega may have only submitted certain movt's but I'm curious what members opinion, experience and observations are? 

You mention that most likely all the 56x's could pass the 5 position test. Even the 563? I hear very little about this movement compared to the touted 562 & 564. 

Happy Labor Day ('13) to my fellow members. 

Cheers


----------



## v76

Apologize for resurrecting a well-beaten horse. Just got my gold "linen" dialed, cal. 564-powered Constellation (gold filled case - ref. 168.018) back from a service. It's been keeping fantastic time ... less than a second gained in the last 24 hours. Have had similar experiences with the cal. 55x/56x family of movements on a couple of other examples, an indicator of what Omega was capable of in the '50s/'60s.


----------



## Spazz27

v76 said:


> Apologize for resurrecting a well-beaten horse.


We're talking about movements over 50 years old, so discussing a thread a couple of years old should be ok 

And yes, when I contributed to this I was referring to my 565, and still working flawlessly. The 50s and 60s indeed were a great era for Omega.


----------



## BarracksSi

Thanks for the bump. Always nice to read good stuff about my dad's 550.


----------



## v76

Here's the beaut ...
















Over 48 hours, and still less than +/- 1s off ... astonishing!


----------



## Dch48

I read an article last night comparing Rolex and Omega movements and the author was of the opinion that the best Omega movement ever made was the 1120. He is not a fan of the coaxial escapement either.
Who Makes a Better Movement - Rolex or Omega?


----------



## CajunMike

Dch48 said:


> I read an article last night comparing Rolex and Omega movements and the author was of the opinion that the best Omega movement ever made was the 1120. He is not a fan of the coaxial escapement either.
> Who Makes a Better Movement - Rolex or Omega?


This is an opinion piece without any technical merit so take it for what that is worth. More like "shock jock" stuff.


----------



## Creatives

With regard to accuracy of the new 8500 movement, someone earlier was saying it may not stand up to the 2500. Mine is currently +2.0 seconds... over 42 days.

Its making me look at my other watches with contempt, which is annoying.


----------



## neal.jy

I personally find the 8601 in my watch to be absolutely beautiful.. plus the annual calendar complication and quick-advance date change are pretty awesome in my opinion


----------



## Birky1

1969 cal 565 running as strong as when it was new


----------



## avalvo

I am amazed at the accuracy of my 2500D watches. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk


----------



## mr_macgee

I've got to say after after having more than several nice Omega's, My 564 chronometer version is simply awesome even after 20 years of daily use. Actually I have several 56X's & 55X's.

The  30T2-RG is also really nice, while not an auto it is still in it's own right extremely capable and reliable. What I love about it, is that it will sit for months at a time in the drawer over many years but once wound and on wrists it performs as it did in the late 40's. The 30t2-rg watches also have the feel and presence of the classic watch that we all love and for me, is the reason why I first started my love for watches.

But my 564 and my other 55X's and 56X's are awesome. Compared to my non-Omega's, these simply keep plugging away when wearing regularly, never having to wind them or needing to re-adjust the time. I'm blown away how well they keep time. What more could you ask for?

A lot of people seem to think that the 2500 & 8500 movts. are the best and they may very well be but they have yet proven their test to age like the movts. mentioned above.


----------



## Kjack48230

M4tt said:


> From a personal point of view I prefer the 751 and the 565 for the simple reason that they are almost identical and yet still rationally affordable. So, why would I say that the 564 is the overall best movement Omega have ever made, and how do I defend myself from the assertion that I am simply being nostalgic?
> 
> First, it is simply beautiful:
> 
> Second, it is easy to regulate. the Swan Neck regulation system is both lovely to look at, devastatingly effective and simple to use.
> 
> Third, it is simple to repair; an elegant, no nonsense design which is precisely as complex as it needs to be and no more. The regulator (above) exemplifies this; remove the swan neck and you are left with a simple 'stick' regulation. All the Swan Neck regulator is is a spring (the swan neck) and a screw. The spring pushes the 'stick' firmly against the screw ensuring that any adjustment that is made to the screw is transmitted directly to the stick. Thus a simple watchmaker's screwdriver is all that is needed to make incredibly fine adjustment. Simple, beautiful and _very _precise.
> 
> Did I mention that it is beautiful?


It's amazing that over 10 years later this still rings true. I have just recently acquired a Seamaster dating at '65 and lord knows how long it's been sitting idle, the condition was near perfect despite the small amount of corrosion spots on the dial. I started wearing it and at first it was off the first day or two by -10 to -15 seconds a day but by the weeks end, a stable -5 seconds a day. Pretty unbelievable if you ask me. I've heard of Chronographs with larger deviations. And as M4tt said.... "Did I mention that it is beautiful?" This is one of my most favorite time pieces ever, besides my Mid 1800 grandfather clock in my dining room.


----------



## jivetkr

My AT 8500 is doing about 1 second a week after being regulated. Its so rock solid.


----------



## semmern

What a treasure trove of information this old thread is!

I completely agree with M4tt, the 5xx movements have to be among Omega’s greatest. I have a 561 in my Pie Pan, and I love that watch!


----------



## archaeobeat

M4tt said:


> The Cal 8500 is a fine movement, but I really don't think that it is such an obvious hands down winner. As I have said many times before, every movement is a series of compromises and, as such, it is hard to compare one set of compromises with another. The 8500 certainly has the finest escapement that Omega have ever made, but in standard trim it is neither poised nor regulated with the care that could take full advantage of either the escapement, the FSB or the hairspring. However, we can get an idea of how good it could be from its predecessor, the Cal.2500.
> 
> The accuracy that the 2500 is capable of is the stuff of myth. As it stands, I know of a couple of 2500 movements that, after careful fettling, can easily meet quartz standards of accuracy. As yet, I haven't heard any tales of 8500 being regulated to this sort of level, but given the balance, spring and escapement, it is only a matter of time. As it stands, the 2500 has a strong case in its own right as it has actually proven that it can be fettled to far greater stability and accuracy than mere COSC. More to the point, the 2500, with the 'cockroach' genes of the 2892 is comparatively easy to fix and fettle and has a thirty year heritage of indestructibility. However, the purist would argue that it isn't really an Omega movement, merely an Omega escapement.
> 
> However, returning to 'quartz like accuracy' it is easily forgotten that, in the old 'observatory' accuracy competitions, the Cal.30T2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could also perform this feat in the forties. In slightly more ordinary trim it was, and is, about as accurate as the current 'standard' 8500 even with an ordinary escapement with a mere Breguet Overcoil. However one difference is that the 30T2 can be easily regulated at home without paying £300 for a special tool.
> 
> The 30T2 is one movement that has stood the test of time. It may not be automatic, but it is rugged, robust and handsome. It is also cheap and easy to service, even today. It is one of Omega's calibres that has undeniably earned the label 'legendary'. (Not least by being the movement in several of the RAF's finest watches.)
> 
> Omega 1894 Homage & 1945 Cal. 30T2SCrg
> 
> Is it a better movement than the 8500? despite lacking the Coaxial Escapement which, as I have argued before, is the best thing to happen to horology in three hundred years, the 30T2 combines elegance, simplicity and accuracy. The Cal.8500 exhibits two of these but, to my mind, does have the feel of several complex solutions looking for a problem that isn't there.
> 
> However, I have merely compared the 8500, 2500 and 30T2 as a rhetorical device.
> 
> The reason is simple: there is an obvious contender for Omega's overall best movement, and that is the Cal.564 / 565. I choose the 564 in particular for the simple reason that they have a quick set date, a convenience that the earlier 5xx lacked. The fact is, pretty well any five (or seven) series Omega has the right to be described as legendary.
> 
> bidfun-db Archive: Watch Movements: Omega 562
> 
> From a personal point of view I prefer the 751 and the 565 for the simple reason that they are almost identical and yet still rationally affordable. So, why would I say that the 564 is the overall best movement Omega have ever made, and how do I defend myself from the assertion that I am simply being nostalgic?
> 
> First, it is simply beautiful:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, it is easy to regulate. the Swan Neck regulation system is both lovely to look at, devastatingly effective and simple to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, it is simple to repair; an elegant, no nonsense design which is precisely as complex as it needs to be and no more. The regulator (above) exemplifies this; remove the swan neck and you are left with a simple 'stick' regulation. All the Swan Neck regulator is is a spring (the swan neck) and a screw. The spring pushes the 'stick' firmly against the screw ensuring that any adjustment that is made to the screw is transmitted directly to the stick. Thus a simple watchmaker's screwdriver is all that is needed to make incredibly fine adjustment. Simple, beautiful and _very _precise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention that it is beautiful?
> 
> Fourth: while, when set up correctly it can be quite astonishingly accurate, the fact is that the 5xx movements flew through COSC in quite astonishing numbers over the years they were produced. even today you can find movements that have seen little in the way of love but are still stunningly accurate even before the service in which you discover just how remarkable their accuracy was in the light of their condition. This is a watch that can transcend abuse (even if it shouldn't).
> 
> Fifth, The power reserve. One of the selling points of the 8500. The 8500 uses two barrels to achieve a sixty hour power reserve, which is rather similar to the Favre Leuba 'Twin Power' movement of the sixties. However, the 5xx uses a simple single barrel and achieves a fifty hour reserve by simply being very efficient.
> 
> Finally, the 5xx is the movement in most of the great watches of the golden age. From the Pie Pan Connies to the Sm300, this was, and remains, the movement of champions.
> 
> So, is it a better movement than the 8500? Well, it is definitely easier and cheaper to service. In standard trim it is as accurate and stable and, like the 8500 it can be fettled to a far higher level of stability and accuracy as it proved repeatedly in observatory chronometer competitions. (to be fair I am sure that an 8500 with similar preparation would beat it, but by how much?)
> 
> The 5xx is proven over a lifetime of service, it is very hard to kill. I know which I would rather have fall off my wrist onto a hard floor: the 5xx would be less likely to break and far, far less to fix if it did. Likewise, a skipped service or two would be far cheaper to remedy and, on past evidence, less likely to cause a problem: Omega really took case hardening seriously then. Seriously in a way they don't seem to any more.
> 
> The aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. I think they are both lovely, but the 565 is an ungilded lilly. I prefer less make up myself.
> 
> As for servicing costs, watchmakers like working on them and parts are still reasonably plentiful and comfortably cheap. In my experience a simple service is about a quarter of the cost of a service on the 8500. Any parts needed will, I suspect, merely add to the difference.
> 
> The fact is that, there are a lot of 5xx movements left around. they just resist entropy rather well. Firstly they are tough little buggers and secondly they inspire their owners to keep them going, like an old, but well loved, pet.
> 
> There is one final factor. For about the price of an 8500 engined watch you could conceivably buy an immaculate example of a Piepan Connie, a Bulls Eye Dynamic and a Sm300 with enough change left to buy an ex RAF Omega 30T2 (as worn in the Battle of Britain). That is, a series of legendary movements in a series of legendary watches.
> 
> Maybe, in fifty years time, you might be able to say all of this about the 8500.
> 
> Maybe...
> 
> _edit_
> 
> And don't forget, I didn't even mention the Cal.1040!


Wonderful response I totally agree. I also love the history and aesthetically pleasing looks of the 500x 700x and 600x movements. Would wear a watch with them in it anytime over a modern movement.


----------

