Reply With QuoteHmmm......or Zenith :-)Originally Posted by Seamaster73
My supposition was that Omega provided the functional and technical specification, and ETA figured out how to productionise it, which would suggest that conventional watchmaking capability (the means to design and manufacture) is not yet fully integrated. They did at least have the wits to specify a quickset hour hand, long power reserve and appropriately wide subdial spacing for the chrono. I don't think so highly of their new generation of case designers, though - or their legal department, for that matter.
I doubt, if Omega is relying so heavily on ETA to build a standard movement, that it's contributing significant technical input into the choice of materials and manufacturing processes and changes to make a fundamentally antimagnetic version of it. But it does suggest that ETA probably has more watchmaking chops than most people give it credit for - complaining about ETA's conventionality being more of a Level 1/2 WIS thing :).
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Hmmm......or Zenith :-)
It's interesting you mention the quick set hour hand - I've seen that complained about often, though I like the feature. It seems ETA is as good as anybody, and probably better than many, at movement design and production. It's unquestionable that between Swatch's genuine in-house brands and ETA that the Swatch group has a huge amount of skills in the manufacture of movements.
If we're going to talk about "manufacturing" "production" and "engineering" and include the word "traditionally", then you may as well say that Omega having "paid ETA to manufacture the 8500" is the same as me saying "my left hand just paid my right hand to write a letter".
So, remind me, who made the movements for earlier daytonas?
I didn't realize that the movement supplier Rolex used 15 years ago was related to the equivalence between the current not-in-house Speedmaster and current actually-in-house Daytona. Learn something new everyday! Also, perhaps you can remind me of all the times Rolex tried to call that Zenith movement in house?
The Speedmaster professional? Oh yes, beautiful, versatile and very comfortable to wear. The new Speedmaster? I'm not so sure and I was one of the people that liked Chris Bangles BMW designs.
It was more a comment made to counter the "definitive chrono" comments - a title I think, historically, Omega edge over rolex.
While I still would much rather own ANY (opinions vary on the in-house thing) Speedmaster than a Daytona, I accept that rolex never marketed the Zenith daytona as "in-house".
Valjoux, wasn't it?
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I think the real, actual, Speedmaster Professional (not the new IMO horrible 44mm version) is one of the absolutely best examples of a watch that carries its history forward to today. Omega has done a remarkably good job of not ruining that watch over its long history. I'm wearing mine today and it's a great, and totally undervalued, watch.
On edit: it's also about 10,000,000 times easier to read than any version of the Daytona.
Modified, improved and embellished, depends on where you draw the lines, if an un modified movement was used directly then you wouldn't get away with claiming that it's in house. To modify the movement they must have done some development.
I have no idea what they changed to the Valjoux 72 though.
Almost an irrelevant discussion as it's only a WIS that will worry about the internals.
Correct! Even better illustrating the point.
I would say so too but they had the distinction of being (one of the) first, not necessarily the best - the movement still doesn't hack, and chrono engagement is still via the horizontal clutch, not the vertical kind that sets WIS hearts a-flutter. Still , for my monay, as a chrono it beats the antediluvian Lemania in the Omega hands down. Slow beat, no date, no auto, stamped cam operation, sliding pinion... not for me.
Last edited by andrew; 16th April 2014 at 21:20.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
They are rather good aren't they! :)
Not really - back then, almost no-one had an in-house chrono. Only Zenith, Seiko, and (shock horror!) Breitling and Heuer. Fat lot of good it did them, with the possible honourable exception of Zenith, although I think they should update it.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
When back then? Are you talking automatic chronograph (1969 onwards)? I though Zenith used excelsior park movements in their original chronographs (1930s)
That's what I was going to say.
Despite all the ad hominem arguments around who manufactures what, I have yet to see any evidence that the 9300 calibre is somewhat inferior to the 4130 calibre.
I was referring to the late 60s, when the first auto chronos came out - Rolex was using the Valjoux 72, tweaked. That was then, of course; it's the Daytona of today that's being critiqued...
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Exactly.
I don't think this was ever the point of this thread, except to those who may be a little sensitive to it?
It's early days but it certainly looks like a winning movement. Of course it's easy to jam all that tech into a movement around 50% larger than the 4130, which came out 15-odd years ago. But as I said before, the Omega style is now for thicker and wider cases, so that obviously isn't an issue.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I just hope Omega continue to resist the temptation Rolex finally succumbed to recently with the Sub, and leave the damn thing alone.
Looking at the new Sub is like watching the death of an old friend.
The movement itself isn't that thick, the display backs (combined with water resistance levels) are what cause the watches to be thick.
Agreed. It's horrible. Chap at the gym was wearing a bi-metal one the other day, it was one ugly lump of (bi) metal.
Of course it's inferior - it lacks a quick-set dateWhereas the Daytona always has the right date ;)
It's just a matter of time...
There is no need to be that thick for 600m. Many has thinner cases for a lot less, and Omega's own older 2500 watches with display backs show that they do not need huge thickness either - albeit 150m/300m. Rolex managed 600m in 1967, in a normal size case - I'm not pitting them against each other - I'm just disappointed in the 8500 PO's etc. for their thickness, having tried to get on with one, it is the only area that grated, and I still have my LNIB 2500D PO, whereas the 8500 had to go - I can forgive my Ploprof as it's a completely over engineered watch with a nod to the original.
The thinner master co-axials maybe be a new direction, if they expand that range.
Last edited by Omegamanic; 17th April 2014 at 10:51.
It's just a matter of time...
It's what the market demands ;)
Much more stylish than a blingy Rolex!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
lol
I don't think it is a market thing - I really do no believe that many buyers would prefer a thicker, rather than thinner, watch case.
It's just a matter of time...
Just had a quick look at the prices of second hand Daytonas. The prices are all compressed between just over £6K to £8.5K for chancers trying to get above list price for new ones. I really can`t see the point in paying £6.5-£7K+ for a very second hand example (refinished, <10yrs old) when list price for a brand-spanking latest model new one is £7650. To me, that doesn`t make sense; hunt around for a new one has to be the way to go.
Having said all that, and started a thread that quickly morphed into something completely different, I doubt whether I can persuade myself to part with that sort of money. I think that's the crux of it; Rolexes have simply become too expensive and it's a lot of money to tie up in another watch. I don`t see the prices rising significantly so it can`t be justified for an investment standpoint either. That boat sailed 4-5 years ago.
Logically, nice second hand ones (10+ yrs old, Rolex serviced and properly refinished) should be selling for around £5K.....clearly that isn`t the case and I doubt that it will be in future unless they really do cease to be desirable.
Paul
Can you imagine how hot the Omega diver line would be right now if they continued to refine the SM300 over the years in the same way? It's a shame they have been so schizophrenic at times (though I guess it produced some interesting and unique watches, along with some horrible ones).
Looking at the new Sub is like looking at "Fat Elvis" - perhaps not such a meaningful example for people in the UK, but I can't think of a good universal analogy. The nice thing about Omega's willingness to offer 50 versions of every single watch, is that (hopefully) it should leave room for the classics in addition to the monstrosities. Rolex is much less diverse in their offerings.
Well, it offers far fewer versions of the watches that this forum wants to buy. And this forum really only wants to buy steel sports watches...
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
For you perhaps. For me the cups half full and I see it as the birth of a new one.
I see it as an evolution. The sub so drooled over on Connerys wrist was, through the same evolution (as we all know, a very slow process with rolex) very different to the recently discontinued model - do we hate the last model for its applied, rather than painted, markers, its sapphire crystal rather than, basically, a plastic one or the fact it is more bulkily-styled with its crown guards?
Every hobby will have the old guard - nothing wrong with that. And the old shaped rolex is available in such vast quantities that pretty much anyone who still wants one in those dimensions can go out and buy one.
Certainly nobody, to my knowledge, is forcing the owners of the older models to bin theirs and buy a new one.
As a company, rolex aren't daft. They obviously felt that, with all the new touches applied to the new model (better bracelet and clasp, ceramic bezel, maxi dial...) it was time to make the bold move to, after all that time, modernise the case.
Refuse to move and eventually everybody leaves you behind. Refuse to adapt and you eventually become extinct - no matter how big you are.
Of course, its all a matter of opinion - those who hate the new case probably do so with the same passion that I reserve for the "cyclops". I doubt rolex particularly care about either of our opinions enough to change either just yet...
I would have agreed with everything you wrote, were it not for the new SD4000. That watch really seems to have smoothed over some of the issues that people have with the new Subs. The case isn't identical to the older watches, obviously, but it shows a great deal more Rolex DNA than the 116610 and 114060 pair.
And it looks to be fantastic.
I don't think it shows a "GREAT DEAL more rolex DNA" though. Looking at it, the lugs are the same as the new sub, but the crown guards do seem to taper more - Im guessing nothing to do with DNA or to be delicate but because, with the substantially thicker case, if they didn't theyd completely engulf the crown!
Im really enjoying the 114060 at the moment, but Im dying to try a SD4000 on my wrist - the verdict is out - theres only room in my plan for one or the other!
At the end of the day, they will both attract fans and remain separate watches in their own right.
An exotic-dial example with the acrylic bezel hardly makes for a valid comparison.
source: philippe (VRF)
source: Hodinkee
source: Matthew Bain
source: Mike Wood
source: my camera
Rolex sports chronographs have obvious design continuity.
Last edited by Belligero; 18th April 2014 at 10:04.
Thanks for the extra pictures, that was my opinion too, whereas the Speedmaster has gone from three sub dials to two sub dials and added a date, the only similarities are black dial, hands and fonts. The Rolex changes seem more subtle, crown guards, screw down pushers etc, but I wouldn't labour the point, it is, at this level, opinion.
Will you stop this please! I have never had the slightest desire for a Daytona, but those pictures have had me browsing Chrono 24 for one. That's the way it starts. That's the way it always starts.An exotic-dial example with the acrylic bezel hardly makes for a valid comparison.
source: philippe (VRF)
source: Hodinkee
source: Matthew Bain
source: Mike Wood
source: my camera
Rolex sports chronographs have obvious design continuity.
It's about as valid a comparison as posting an Ed White Speedy next to a horrid Michael Schumacher model - that's to say not valid at all. You always bring the sanity when you post.
Im afraid thats one thing I hate about Omega, great watches but far too many mutations of its once iconic models.
Posting Permissions
