Reply With QuoteThe marketing simply aims to provide an apparent logical as a base for the delusion.Originally Posted by aldfort
It is WR all over and then some.
Nothing to do with marketing. I'd like to know if Henk Hoving is right or not.
The marketing simply aims to provide an apparent logical as a base for the delusion.
It is WR all over and then some.
More marketing bullshit IMO.
Amusing to read the comments in this thread........spot the fanboys.
Lets face facts: the vast majority of people don`t need a watch that's resistant to extreme sources of magnetism. If you get close to the working parts of an NMR or MRi kit, perhaps it's an issue, and I`d argue that a mechanical watch probably isn`t a good idea in those locations. Having said that, I used an NMR machine routinely for many years whilst wearing vintage watches, and I never had a problem.
Much as I like Omega's older stuff (I own 17 Omega watches) I despair at the direction the brand has gone in and the strategy they've undertaken. Whatever happened to making high quality watches at sensible prices?
These threads often degenerate into Rolex v Omega, with sides being taken accordingly. I`m the exception; I collect Omega watches, I work on Omega watches, but frankly I`m starting to seriously dislike what the brand currently stands for.
Omega are always going to be like the little kid trying to prove himself. Rolex don`t need to resort to such marketing ploys......because they're Rolex.
Omega make some worthy watches, no question, but they're still way overpriced. If they'd guarantee that their co-axial offerings would keep time to within 1 sec/day, and provide the adjustments free of charge if the watch failed to do so, I`d have more respect for them. It's ironic, turn the clock back 40 years and the shop who sold you an Omega would always be willing to regulate it if it wasn`t performing well (or at least check it). Nowadays all you get is a picture of George Clooney grinning at you!
Paul
If you know your basic high school stuff you'd know I'm right.
Wood isn't magnetic and won't conduct it either, it's not affected by magnetism is any way. Now, it doesn't make a fine and handy choice to make watch parts from, but silicium and other non-ferro alloys do, and are just as impervious to magnetism as wood is.
In the old days there was no good non-ferro alternative, especially for things like the hairspring and balance, these things got magnetic pretty easy. The way to solve this in the past is to use a soft iron case which conducts the magnetism around the movement.
Nowadays there are several non-ferro alloys that make a great hairspring and balance, problem solved. Rolex made the alloy in 1995 and began using it since 2000 when the new caliber 4130 came. Nowadays all their watches have the Parachrom parts. For the rest a typical movement consists of brass parts and plating, also non-ferro materials.
Now, Omega is making a big deal about it for also using non-ferro materials for their hairspring and balance, I say let em, but I'm just not impressed. That whole certification process is nothing more than marketing to me.
+1
Agree...
I don't know you're right, that's why I'm asking for definite facts.
Answer me this then, if Rolex and IWC watches are all easily capable of withstanding the >15,000 Gauss why are Omega making a HUGE deal out of it? If you're right, it would be like Omega going all out advertising how COSC-proven their watches are.
It sounds like Omega have something that no-one else currently has to me, so why shouldn't they use it as a selling point?
I remember comparing Casio watches at school - 'mine says 50m which means I can wear it swimming' - 'mine says 100m and its got a fish on so I can use it scuba diving like action man!!'
Fast forward 30 years - 'my watch is more antimagnetic than your watch so I can wear it having an MRI scan. Are you still awake? Hello?'
Some people in this thread are confusing their facts. Anything that moves within a static magnetic field is capable of being influenced by that field. The question is more about is the effect of such influence permanent or transitory.
Put simply, just because wood is not attached to a bar magnet you happen to have lying around your house does not mean that moving wood through the field of that magnet does not have an effect on it.
So bringing this back to watches will an Omega keep better time while working in a strong magnetic field than a Rolex (insert other brand of choice with a lesser field strength rating) is the question. Of course some watches will totally fail as they will become magnetised but this is a different problem.
That's kind of what they do these days tbh.
It's an interesting technical standard although very much at the margin of utility. Additional antimagnetic ratings to 50k or 80 k A/m are enough to prevent magnetism from large loudspeakers, which can affect conventional movements (BTDT). IWC's 500k A/m Ingenieur from way back whenever was six times more resistant than other antimagnetic watches, but it died a death. Consumers were just as spec-conscious as they are today, as anyone old enough to remember Top Trumps or drive a hot hatch will attest...It sounds like Omega have something that no-one else currently has to me, so why shouldn't they use it as a selling point?
I read that these practically non-ferrous movements can withstand the fields of an MRI, but you'll still get asked to remove your watch if you go for a scan, no matter how much you protest.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I don't know, I just presented the basics about ferro and non-ferro. Ask the marketing boys, but to me it looks like they stop COSC-certification and put their own system in to replace that. Probably to reduce cost, COSC testing costs a fee, takes extra time due to the waiting lists, and it involves extra transport. By doing their own testing and certification right next door they can control cost and time.
And don't tell me that it's a fair and unbiased institute, with just one client and sponsor.
Disagree, but that's something Omega wants you to believe. Omega is the only one who makes a big deal about it, but there are other players as well.
That's NOT to protect the watch, that's only to make sure the magnetic fields don't take a different route that only the MRI, as it can distort the image.
And, for another poster above, wood is absolutely not affected by magnetism.
I know. The radiologist doesn't give a stuff about your luxury wristwatch but she does care an awful lot about a misdiagnosis caused by over half a pound of shiny metal ;).
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Actually, rather than rolling our eyes perhaps we should say that this is brilliant marketing! Rather than simply saying that some bits of the movement are made out of Nivagaus (typical response - um, what's that again?) they've managed to imply that all other watches have failed some important test. Perhaps they will stop at any moment. Or possibly explode!
That is what I time and again write, startng with the brilliant ploy by Biver and Hayek in 1983.
What followed was that selling plastic quartz watches under the Swatch brand supplied them with all the marketing funds they could dream of.
They reinvented the archaic, obsolete mechanical movement as something desireable, something luxurious instead of surpassed technology. The sold automated mass produced humdrum designs as swiss craftsmanship and it took off big way.
Just look at it. The demand for the mass produced yesteryear tech is so great that we pay easily over 1k for a Swiss made in China copy of a 2824-2 inside of even more for an 'in house' dressed up Seiko caliber.
Have a look at the OEM Nato straps to see what has been achieved: A nylon strap with branden harware gets worth ten times more so we can adorn reinvented obsolete tech in matching... ahum... style.
It is shockingly brilliant.
Now as to the Milgauss. What Hovink is stating is that a SeaDweller is WR1000 because that looks nice but it actually can go to 1500.
It again is illustrating the triumph of marketing, of creating belief in the untangible of brand added value. The win-win for the sellers is that the more the buyer invests in the irrational the more fanatical he will defend his decision.
It defies logic.
It all starts with the brilliant strategy to sell something obsolete as something desirable. To detach the product from the tangible. To replace logic with emotion.
Never mind though. It will increase to silly hights and as the dutch saying goes; als apen hoger klimmen willen, ziet men ras hun blote billen.
About defying logic. Have a look at:
Time intervals can be measured to within 1/8th of a second with the centre chronograph seconds hand, while the two counters on the dial at 9 and 3 o’clock display elapsed time in hours and minutes respectively. Drivers can therefore accurately map out their race times and determine how they must drive to win the race.
source: http://www.rolex.com/world-of-rolex/...formula-1.html
That is almost as funny as Allen Harper playing Jacques Cousteau with his Submariner in a glass of water.
Anyway. I say kuddos to Omega for FINALLY go one up on COSC. They had to. Trying to sell the co-ax is self defeating within that 50 year old standard which was not much of a challenge to meet even back then!
This is from a thread I made ages ago about what kind of magnetic fields one might expect to come a cross in day to day life:
As per the disclaimer, I don't know how possible it is to "convert" gauss into A/m, but online converters exist, so...
That would suggest watches might be more vulnerable than we'd think, and that fits with anecdotal evidence. We've all heard numerous stories of watches magnetised by speakers, airport scanners. Just normal, everyday stuff
Rare earth magnets are everywhere these days.
It doesnt get anymore true just because you keep spouting that nonsense.
The 1983 B&H thing is real, fact.
The Swatch success funding the marketing of the repositioning of the mechanical as a luxury too.
History.
There is sooooo much more but then that is only available in the two languages of the watch industry; German and French.
The fact that B&H marketed and basically relaunched luxury mechanical in contrast to cheaper quartz may be true. But the fact that the public bought into the idea is not entirely because they were somehow brainwashed. It is because there genuinely was something appealing about the old mechanicals, and the old brands and designs were still powerful symbols. B&H did what anyone marketing a product woud do - they emphasised what was appealing about it.
Ultimately mechinical became synonymous with luxury because it was an expensive minority persuit, and therefore exclusive, but it woudn't have managed it unless it was also fascinating and appealing in its own right. B&H were good at marketing, but they didn't somehow make the mechanical watches seem desirable. They already were, and continued to be despite the more technically advanced quartz. The public just needed reminding that they didn't want cheap watches, they wanted really expensive ones. But this is, let's say, a well worn topic...
Last edited by Itsguy; 9th December 2014 at 23:10.
That B&H thing as you like to call it was all about the SWISS watch, not about the MECHANICAL or LUXURY watch. Al about making a Swiss watch available to the large public, in a new and modern form. To gain market share in a market dominated by Japan and the like.
Hence the name Swatch: Swiss watch.
The luxury market sure had its ups and downs but never was fueled by the sale of millions cheap plastic quartz watches.
Quality post. (Though I wish there was a "spoiler" function so I could leave it intact instead of having to truncate.)
Same here — I appreciate pre-Swatch-Group Omegæ and have a few examples of my own, but I simply don't have confidence in the company any more and owning a modern one doesn't interest me. There's a big disadvantage in being part of a publicly-traded conglomerate; the shareholders and bean-counters are definitely calling the shots.
Sorry but it was.
Yes, they came up with a strategy to save the Swiss industry.
That Swiss watch industry was already very well on the road with quartz. The big problem was that they needed better margins AND a market for the bread and butter mechanicals.
The financial problems had nothing to do with quartz. Quartz was going to be the vehicle to rescue in fact!
The real problem was the US letting go of the gold standard, overnight making the Swiss Frank too expensive since unlike the Yen that was not linked to the Dollar. They needed better profit margins!
So yes, their idea to recreate, marked the mechanical as a luxury is what made the Swiss watch industry healthy again.
To those who resent Omega, Swatch, please realize that it was Omega, Swatch that saved the Swiss watch industry. It was them that created the mechanical fashion you guys are followers of. Without that there would be no Richmond and alike groups. No resurrections of just about every half renowned Swiss brand.
PP and Rolex just rode the wave Omega, Swatch created.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 10th December 2014 at 01:16.
Anti-magnetic is nice but at the end of the day I will not be purchasing any more new Omegas until they decide their new watches do not need to be as thick as a ham sandwich.
I'll make an exception for another Speedmaster Pro, which is positively svelte compared to most of the new offerings.
Do explain how Omega saved Rolex rather than playing a perpetual game of catch up since the 1950s?
Am I right in thinking this has similar connotations to Patek, they used the Geneva seal but have now there own seal of quality. OMEGA will do something similar with cosc? However from what I read it is open to everybody and Omega are the first pioneers so to speak of a new certification that encompasses the entire watch.
Arguably Rolex just weathered the storm with deep pockets and a loyal fan base of luxury buyers, both before and after the 'crisis'. They didn't need reinventing, and their customers had the choice of quartz anyway with their most expensive datejust, the Oysterquartz. But most of them didn't choose it, and it was quietly discontinued when it started to conflict with the auto marketing story, a fascinating relic of a future that never happened.
And I wouldn't say B&H rebranded all mechanical as luxury either, they just revived the part that was already luxury. The workhorse mechanical brands and models that were competing on price were utterly wiped out by quartz, it was simply much better at the job. Mechanical, ironically, was better at the job of being expensive, and it's these already expensive luxury brands that B&H consolidated, made vastly more efficient, and relaunched.
Omega meanwhile is just trying to get back to where it was in the 60s, before they made the mistake of trying to compete on price, along with the technical innovation of eight ticks a second and the misfiring cal.1000. 'A good watch for a good price' turned out to be suicide in a luxury sector. What they are doing now is only trying to make up for their lost decades, with a marketing spend to match Rolex and Omega's signature technical innovations on top of it. They haven't lost the plot, they've regained it. Though that's no comfort to those of us who see the prices of a previously attainable brand marching off into the distance.
Last edited by Itsguy; 10th December 2014 at 01:47.
Some good points there, but I really don't see Omega's practices as being consistent with the image that they're is trying to create. Despite what certain people may think, not all luxury-goods buyers are dupes, and some do indeed care about manufacturing and design integrity. Omega just doesn't have the substance to back up their inflated pretensions.
I would disagree . Do you mean to imply Omega doesn't have quality manufacturing or design integrity?
I do agree their price structure is somewhat unrealistic based on the prices on pre-owned market. However , it is too early to judge if it is sustainable or not. And, no -I don't think people buying new Omega watches are dupes as you imply.
Regrets; that quite wasn't my intended implication regarding the term "dupes". I was referring the statement one sometimes encounters on this forum that anyone who buys a watch that costs more than some arbitrary figure is engaging in Veblen-motivated stupidity, and fails to consider that there might be actual quality differences.
However, I most certainly am saying that Omega's willingness to source cheap-labour-produced components and to mimic designs that aren't theirs shows a lack of integrity to me. (Others may feel differently.)
Out of interest, since I haven't been a scientist for years, what sort of magnetic fields would my watch potentially encounter in layman's daily li
The 15,000 figure for the Omega is obviously overkill, as is the 1200m water resistance on my SD on my wrist. But I think it works as reassurance to potential buyers that these watches will not get magnetised/leak etc. I think there is a great appeal to having a 'bulletproof' watch.
And yes I dive with my SD, but only to a paltry 38m (I think on my last free dive!).
Excellent post, and I agree completely. All the haters appear to be annoyed that they can't buy or service Omegas on the cheap any more. That situation never should have arisen if Omega were to be taken seriously as a luxury brand, so they're just re-positioning themselves as a luxury-technical-innovator. Brand differentiation in the market place plus marketing equals sales - it's simple business.
Which non-Omega designs are they mimicking? To my eyes they're trawling their own back catalogue for a lot of their new watches. Also, Omega have a history of having bracelet parts made worldwide (bracelets from Mexico for example) so it's nothing new....
Omega went full-tilt into quartz watches just like everyone else, and then also became bankrupt, with the banks taking control in 1981. I don't believe Rolex went bust. So even discounting for your well-known, and well-entrenched, stance towards Rolex, I cannot see how any of what you claim could possibly be true.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
On a tangent, I quite like Omegae. I have been promoting the use of
Ores
Rolices
Midi
Edoxen
Eternae
as neoclassical plurals but they don't seem to have caught on...
(It doesn't help that Eterna sounds like a low-end costume jewellery brand from Great Britain, a la Argos/Elizabeth Duke. Perhaps another reason it's not destined to succeed)
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Nice — glad I'm not the only one!
While I've used the index/indices pluralization for Rolices/Rollices(?) from time to time (and the antenna/antennæ thing for Daytonæ as well), I hadn't considered the case of Edoxen before. Thanks for that; it made me crack a grin. :)
Deciding on an alternative to "Nomoses" is essential... is it Nomo, Nomoi or Noma? I vote for Nomoi.
Your knowledge of physics and electro chemistry is pretty poor if you think that. If something contains ions, then moving those ions through a static magnetic field will have an effect on them. If you don't believe me take a moment out, as was suggested to you previously, to Google levitating frog.
Not having a pop at you but I do hate it when people contradict proven science facts. As I said you are confusing magnetism (the power of a magnet to attract magnetisable objects) with magnetic fields. Copper is not magnetic nor is it capable of being magnetised but you can induce a current in a copper wire by moving it in a magnetic field. Or do you wish to dispute how an electric generator works?
On the basis that nomos is Greek and the plural of cosmos can be written as cosmoi.... that seems the most sensible. But it's swimming against a tide of popular ignorance that the singular of cosmos is actually cosmo (it isn't, it's a rather metropolitan first name).
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Thanks for that, but regardless on what you claim about magnetism or magnetic fields (or flying frogs), the result stays the same, a piece of wood won't turn into a generator, nor is having moving electrons through brass effecting timekeeping.
Plus, a generator with copper coils still needs an iron core which conducts the field to function properly at all, which proves my point, take away the ferro-material (or make a cage out of it!) and problem solved.
Perhaps I've should have elaborated a bit more on that earlier, but I didn't feel the need to prove my knowledge on just basic physics and/or chemistry.
"Second Watch", apparently.
Paul
I simply LOVE this thread
Omega goes one notch up with the certification specs. for the time keeping and anti magnetism.
'Oh Rolex meets those easily as well since they are the best, in fact even better since the non magnetic metals they use is impervious to magnetismic fields.'
That is exactly why Rolex never enters any competition.
It is interesting to see if the clout of Swatch will give any weight to the new certification.
With possibly all Swatch brands migrating out of it, leaving Rolex in the top three with Invicta, the COSC blurp may become considered to be what it should have been a long time ago: a farce.
Anything to help your anti-Rolex day along. Anything at all ;).
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
You are still wrong. You continue to confuse magnetism with magnetic field strength. It might help if you reminded yourself about Flemings left hand rule.
Iron cores do not conduct magnetic fields they simply concentrate them which is slightly different and you absolutely can induce a current in a copper wire by moving it in a magnetic field, no iron core needed. If you have evidence that the eddy currents set up in brass (or other non magnetisable metal) components of a watch when moved through a static magnetic field do not have an impact on timekeeping the please feel free to publish it as it will make interesting reading.
Actually, I don't. Read again, and then explain to me how a magnet can influence timekeeping if there are only non- ferro materials used.
Having read all of this (mostly) and learnt a number of things, I have decided to buy a Grand Seiko Quartz.
I find it bizarre that a new anti-magnetic standard that far surpasses any other watch I've heard is a reason to have a go at the manufacturer.
Anti-magnetic properties are largely irrelevant to me, and I wouldn't buy a watch on the basis of them - just as WR beyond 150m means nothing to me. (To me, the only difference between 200m WR and 600m [or 4000m] is a thicker crystal and a more uncomfortable watch). But making an anti-magnetic watch that boasts potentially more stable timekeeping in a highly charged environment is not grounds for criticism. The vehemence of the some of the language used seems to reflect more about the posters than the watches.
I won't buy one of the new Omegas, but any improvement on the mechnical movement, however marginal, doesn't seem to me to be a cause for derision.
I don't think the scorn is directed at the movements, it's good that Omega are making progress with materials, timekeeping and service intervals. What people do take with a pinch of salt is marketing in general, because they don't want to be easily duped. Creating a new standard that demands over 15,000 gauss is like saying that all watches should have 1000m water resistance, and any that don't are somehow flawed. Still, it's a selling point for Omega that they've made the iron cage solution found in some other watches basically obsolete, and can therefore use a display back on an antimagnetic watch.
Posting Permissions