Reply With QuoteNope ;)Originally Posted by Guitarfan
ETA is owned by The Swatch Group, as are a bunch of other companies that make movement parts for the Swatch group (mainsprings, hairpsrings etc). They all worked together to develop the 8500 and 9300 Co-Axial movements under Omega's instruction. Rolex has a similar setup as it bought its suppliers in a similar manner.
So yes, it's in-house.
Nope ;)
It's just a matter of time...
How are you going to verify if that is true or not? There's plenty of Daytonas in shop windows.....just not of the stainless steel variety.
But whilst the ETA factory makes movements for all and sundry, albeit that the 8500 and 9300 only go to Omega, Rolex manufactures movements only for itself. Is that correct?
Sorry, I meant the 9300 Speedy - but the PO is even thicker. Quality wise, Omega are getting right up there - but only the Ploprof has just about managed it as far as my loupe is concerned, and the QC is clearly not as thorough as Rolex, just yet. Also, only very recent models of Omega are starting to use white gold surrounds etc. They still use gold cap on the TT watches.
I'd say the new Omega movements are just about in-house as far it is worth to labour the point.
It's just nice to have a varied choice. The only anomaly for me is, Rolex make one Chrono - Omega make how many? As such I believe this makes the Daytona, as a single model, a lot more desirable. If you want a Rolex and a Chrono, you have one option (well apart from metal and dial options).
It's just a matter of time...
I read recently that TT models use solid gold links now, not caps. Interesting about the loupe comments, that's fair enough - although if you need a loupe to see the differences then they can't be that great.
I can't, I read it here on the forum. It's a bit odd if not true though. My local AD has every SS model in the window except the Daytona, as does one in the middle of Manchester. I would guess if I went in and asked there may be a Daytona out back?
Who says the 8500 and 9300 movements are assembled at the ETA factory? My understanding is that the Omega factory assembles movements using parts from various suppliers, as do Rolex.
Last edited by Guitarfan; 16th April 2014 at 11:51.
There's always been a lot of rubbish talked about the "waiting lists" for steel sports Rolexes.
Really? Why do you believe this to be rubbish? Have you had your name on a list (or 10), have you seen them? I have.
It's just a matter of time...
If your AD isn't a big enough player to get decent quantities of stock, go find a better one. Plenty of them.
http://www.wthejournal.com/en/news/v...megas-co-axial
Other manufacturers have had movements made exclusively for them by other manufacturers, and have therefore not been considered to be in-house. Cartier for example in the early days.
Great info, I'd not seen that.
But as Swatch own both Omega and ETA, it's still in-house as they're all under the same umbrella. I'm assuming in your Cartier example that they did not own the movement supplier?
I was just pointing out that quality and price are not perfectly correlated. Additionally, you can start charging more for things when they have a track record. I have no doubt that in around 5 years' time, a "moonwatch" will cost the same as a Rolex chronograph, assuming that long-term issues with the movement don't arise.
I agree that the rubbish talked about years-long waiting lists for sports Rolexes is indeed just that - rubbish. It's not necessarily a lie, because a dealer can put your name down, tell the importer/distributor there's an order for one, and they'll fulfil it... in a year's time. But it's part of the marketing effort and because most normal people won't go round 5-6 dealers looking for the watch they want, the impression is of a watch that's very hard to obtain.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
It's long been established, by which I mean it produces the least arguments, that "in-group" is generally as far as it goes, unless you are talking about specific movements. It's a term that has to work for a corporate structure that doesn't translate very well to the black and white world of the watch fanatic, where it is either is 100% or 0%.
However, the Omega 8xxx/9xxx movements were (according to a SwatchCo VP whose name I can no longer remember) specified by Omega with ETA's help, and it would have been pointless for Omega to manufacture a separate facility, TUPE across a bunch of ETA watchmakers and engineers to a different employing entity and build it in a different corner of the yard just so they could satisfy a few men on the internet. Since the movement would not have existed but for Omega, is not designed for any other manufacturer, and the cases are very obviously designed for those movements, I think "in-house" is a fair term for it.
The relatively Rolex shareholding integration was for tax and company articles purposes only. A company called Rolex finally got around to buying another company called Rolex which had been integrated into its design and manufacturing supply chain for many decades, so we can be sure that "in-house" is the right description.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Very interesting info guys, enjoyable reading the past 10 posts. Thanks
Maybe that is some level of comparison, although it seems to be more of a brand comparison, I thought there would be a technical comparison of the watches.
Style wise am I getting confused? The three dial Daytona, screw down pushers and the two dial Omega 9300? If so outwardly the Rolex is closer to it's heritage models, the Speedmaster just seems to be an exercise in naming a watch as you could easily have picked the DeVille 9300 Chronograph or Seamaster 9300 Chronograph. However, it has got me thinking, was there a two dial Omega 860 Speedmaster?
Definitely no Rolex bias from me, just want facts.
Was this a throw back to Rolex having shares or part ownership in Aegler? Sounds interesting, can you elaborate or send a link.
Serious question: if I walked into, say, three or four ADs at the weekend, what do you think my chances of walking out with a new black dial Daytona would be? I'm on the verge of taking the plunge (either I sell my Sub first on SC and buy a Daytona new from an AD, or offer the Sub plus cash as a trade).
Not very high. But... If you got the UK list of AD's and phoned them I am sure you would soon find one able to provide you with a watch. Personally, I'd be able to call between 3 smaller AD's and have a good chance that one would have the next, or maybe next but one Daytona for me, if I wanted one.
Central London - they still have lists that are very long. in fact one AD only kept 10 names on their list, as they got maybe 2 or 3 Daytonas a year supplied - not sure if that was 3 in each colour dial or not, and they certainly didn't get one allocated for every order they placed - Rolex aren't exactly known for working like that - you can state a preference, and you can have your pick of what is then offered, from what I gather.
It's just a matter of time...
I'm not sure if I agree on this. Swatch also owns Breguet , Blancpain and Glashutte Original: watches from these three brands have really in-house movements, with their own production lines, Omega watches have ETA assembled movements instead.
This is a fairly well researched start, I think:
http://www.timezone.com/2012/12/13/t...james-dowling/
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
We were talking quality, not technical comparison, but both watches have the latest anti-magnetic hairsprings etc with Omega moving towards a fully anti-magnetic version of the 9300 (like they have done with the 8500). I'm no movement expert, but from what I've read I'd be surprised if there was a massive difference in quality between the movements in any way.
The 9300 version of the Speedy has the Moonwatch 'looks', aside from the 2 dial layout. I'd say at a glance it was closer to the Moonwatch than the current Daytona is to a Newman (for example).
Seems sensible; maybe I'll have a call round at the weekend...
From the article linked above, it seems that Omega have their own production lines within a (Swatch owned) ETA facility. And as Andrew correctly says:
Yeah those Porsche's built by Valmet (Saab-Valmet) in Finland are really Viggens and not Porsche ;)
The new movements are about as in-house as I'd expect a modern Omega, and they are no worse either way - it's not going to be a stumbling block.
It's just a matter of time...
Just for comparison, here is a standard ETA 2824:
And here are the movements in question. The 9300 looks very different to an off-the-shelf ETA available to everyone:
Not exactly comparable - Porsche and Valmet were not related to one another, except through a commercial relationship. A better analogy might be engines built for Audi, with design input from Audi, but manufactured in a facility that also makes engines for VW, SEAT etc.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
The ones designed and built by ETA, perhaps with some input from Omega themselves during ideation (though maybe not)? One thing about the Omega/Rolex comparison - at least with Rolex you know that the bracelet wasn't farmed out to some Chinese contract manufacturer.
Which Omega's bracelet was made in China, I have never heard about that before?
As for the Daytona bubble... The Daytona is a nice watch, not a 8k nice in my opinion but it is still a nice watch.
I have never heard of a waiting list for a Daytona (or any other Rolex) in Switzerland (and other countries I have been) so that must be a UK thing.
As for used stock, in any time I can think of at least few dozen watches in private hands or dealers at well below RRP and they are hard to shift. A friend is selling a TT Daytona for 5k and for few months he can't shift it.
7 year waiting list sounds crazy to me, looks like the UK branch got this great idea to create imaginary limited supply in order to increase the demand.
Nothing really special about the Daytona, except that it looks awesome on girls wrist (the white dial especially!)
Depends on how you judge quality, it's like being "successful", how do you gauge "success", hence querying what was implied by quality.
Yeah, now that I've rubbed my eyes red raw with equal measures of salt and Vaseline I guess there is something there in the bloodline that vaguely resembles something that looks like a watch or is that a Seamaster 9300 or DeVille 9300? Strongly disagree with your statement here.
Well tbf you're in Switzerland; it's a small internal market and everyone's very wealthy, all the Europeans have to add at least 20% to your prices and the Americans aren't allowed to import them at all, so it will be a rather uphill battle!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I think it was a PO 2500 link, it may be different for the newer 8500 and 9500 series. While not ideal in the "Swiss Made" world, if the technical specs and QC are correct it doesn't really matter in which country it was made. However, for that luxury feel-good factor I'd rather it was Swiss made.
Fair enough, but I know which look more similar to me...
Someone on this forum posted photos of the PO link they bought from an AD who (probably much to their regret) didn't remove the country of origin - China. I don't know if the clasps and end links are MIC, but I feel fairly comfortable questioning the origins of their small parts given this information. As I said, with Rolex you know. With Omega, it's totally questionable.
This has been discussed a few times (here's one):
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...ht=omega+china
Here's the thread with the picture:
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...ht=omega+china
Just phoned around three ADs inquiring as to the availability of a black-dialled Daytona in steel.
First one said "four year" wait, but they'd be happy to add me to the list.
Second one said they only held a certain number of names on their list and they didn't want to add anymore.
Third one said they had one available and that they would hold it for me until Saturday.
So.. a mixed bag really. I guess the moral of the story is to shop around.
PS. In my statistically unreliable survey, the ADs in bigger towns/cities had the list. Might be worth trying off the beaten path...
The 5 to 7 year wait is not a current thing, and very unlikely that you would be waiting too long, in all but a few London AD's - it was an 80's and possibly early 90's thing at its height, and also possibly restricted by the number of movements made available by Zenith to Rolex, and the work involved to rework them - as such most Daytonas were precious metal/bi-metal - but I can assure you the demand for the steel model was virtually global. Once the movements moved in-house any production issues could have been handled in-house and stepped up if required. So from 2000 onwards the Daytona has become easier and easier to come by.
The current lists are simply down to larger AD's running a list - if they take a name and add it to their list, and divide the numbers of watches and customers they can give a rough gestimate of how long it may take to fulfil all orders before the next customer - in the UK and many parts of Europe it wasn't that long ago that sports Rolex (i.e. professional range) were sold as soon as they arrived, or there was list (this included the Explorer II models!), so there was a wait if you wanted a particular model - this was more than likely down to Rolex JIT production, which was sited, from memory, as being the envy of many other brands rather than anything else as far as I am aware.
It's a watch - it's a very nice watch. It is also a better, and nicer looking watch than many other more expensive Chronos out there. There are other choices though ;)
It's just a matter of time...
That is exactly my experience - worth trying smaller privately owned AD's - those in large towns have a larger customer base and a lot more enquiries.
It's just a matter of time...
This.
I think Omega is trying to claim in-house on a technicality for marketing purposes. They aren't really, not in the context of the proper in-house manufacturers.
I agree and I find it unfortunate that so many educated enthusiasts seem not to care. Omega makes nice watches, I'm wearing one right now, but in my opinion they are being fairly deceptive while at the same time making use of some fairly obvious cost cutting measures - while also raising their prices through the roof. It's odd that people argue this is somehow desirable.
Have they ever claimed in-house for the new movements?
It's just a matter of time...
QED.
So the first two do not sell enough watches to get them in stock! and the third does!
RIAC
It was an 8500 PO link apparently.
Ive always had little problem with the swatch group/ETA connection and been able to see the disadvantages of in-house production as clearly as I see the advantages of it.
For some reason, finding that the bracelet links were made in China bothered me more than any of the done-to-death movement debates on the forum.
Proving, most probably, that (as Ive, thankfully, always been able to accept - rather than lamely deny), snobbery is one of the many reasons I buy the watches I do!
Im pretty sure that they have.
Edit. Their 2007 Omega site "press release" for instance. The blurb seems to hinge squarely around the 8500 being in-house.
Other examples are easily-enough found. Unless they have backpedalled recently...?
Last edited by Umbongo; 16th April 2014 at 18:05.
It seems they do " All of the 202 components have been newly created entirely in-house using third millennium technology to ensure optimum performance. "
I thought it was all - in-house developed or designed - but it seems they also state/claim manufacture.
It's just a matter of time...
I'm not sure that even calling it in-house developed/designed would be correct. Here's a relevant quote from Nick Hayek Jr. in WatchTime: Omega Special Issue, October 2008, "Omega is a Pioneering Brand", Nick Hayek Jr. interviewed by Rudiger Bucher, Page 38.
"This caliber family [8500], which has a 100 percent Omega identity, will ultimately animate nearly all of Omega's mechanical watches, ... ETA maufactured Caliber 8500 under commision from Omega, which also directed and supervised the manufacturing. All of the investments were and still are borne by Omega. Naturally, Omega will continue to collaborate with ETA, and Nivarox will continue to supply the balance-springs. ... We're expanding the premises in Biel: part of the production for Omega - both T1 (assembly of movements) and T2 (encasing the movements into the watches) - will move into those premises."
I don't see anything in here to suggest that Omega actually engineered the movement. Clearly, they paid ETA to manufacture the 8500 (manufacturing traditionally includes engineering, while production does not) , and "direct and supervised the manufacturing"... whatever that means. Reading that quote, with all it's PR implications, suggests to me that Omega might have simply given ETA some design parameters and then paid the cost to bring the movement to market. I've talked to people who spoke candidly, though off the record, that this is basically a correct read on the situation.
Much as I do like the Daytona, My God, the Speedy is one classically good looking timeless piece! It may be old, it may be common, but it's beautiful.Fair enough, but I know which look more similar to me...
Proves my long held contention that Rolex may make the definitive diver, but it is Omega that makes the definitive chrono.
Or, Omega/ETA/NamelessChineseContractFirm if you want to be precise.
I have been offered 3 so far this year, I purchased one last year as I was enquiring about a patek and just asked if they had one and they did indeed. So brought it.
Posting Permissions
