Reply With QuoteThat may very well have been the main motivation for Omega to take the design aboard.Originally Posted by Daddelvirks
Seems confirmed by them not exploiting the potential in a marketed product even 10 years later.
You've got to do something to keep the punters coming :wink:That is however a crucial aspect of it.
Mechanical movements are outdated technology. Surpassed by accutron, quartz, atom-clock.
The appreciation of the craftsmanship involved, the fascination by the mechanics which we can grásp, are something different.
Within this anachronism as time keeping mechanism the co-axial escapement is just as big a step as the lever escapement was.
Logically seen, this ´development´ makes no sense as the whole technology has been surpassed but that does not alter the fact that withín the technology of mechanical movements is it a revolution.
Like I wrote it is a huge step forward in a technology that is in a world of it´s own that was left wáy behind by accutron already.
That accutron technology too deservedly has an appreciative following. It has fascinating aspects and deserves to still be híghly appreciated for the breath taking technology it was at the time. As technology for accurate time keeping however it is history, old news and a breakthrough in accutron taking it a step further stiil leaves it way behind quartz, let alone heq, let alone atom thingus.
The co-axial escapement is a briljant step 150 years late. It is every bit as briljant as it is but has no impact on state of the art time keeping.
I appreciate technology. Period. As such I am impressed to no end by it. Dissappointed that Omega is not offering a model which exploits the step forward it is within this technology. Happy to read that it cán be regulated to unlock the potential even as a mass produced product.
Cheers,
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
That may very well have been the main motivation for Omega to take the design aboard.
Seems confirmed by them not exploiting the potential in a marketed product even 10 years later.
No Ford for me but I am off to two of my local favourites tomorrow. :wink:
Cheers,
Neil.
I think (or at least hope) that people are underestimating the future potential of the coaxial. It may have missed its destiny as a marine chronometer, but that doesn't mean it is utterly irrelevant. Daniels himself stated that the coaxial was developed to allow mechanical watches to compete directly with quartz. While the average quartz can hit fifteen seconds a month and TC quartz can hit that in a year, a mechanical, at around five seconds a day is, as several people have pointed out, is less of a serious timepiece and more of a romantic statement.
However, a watch which can equal a modern quartz as the 2500 can with careful regulation has moved itself back into the game. If, as I believe will at some point be the case, (maybe in a - as yet non existent - 8600 'observatory special') you get a mature coaxial with old fashioned poising and new fangled regulation using Si technology we could see a watch that can compete directly with the best of TC quartz. All of a sudden, the 'romance' of a mechanical watch also has the genuine practicality of a thermocompensated quartz. That's got to be a tempting combination.
As for the Tag, I'm trying to work out what problem 'belt drive' is a solution to? I really can't think of one.
I suspect I will be off to Poynings. I got a couple of lovely bits and bobs there the other day and I'm all hopeful.
The belt driven Tag looks nice and different but it isn't revolutionary -just different using old technology and adapting it - the Co-ax was all new and better than anything currently being used.
I love it - but then I live near Dr Daniels and love the history.
Omega would have put up the prices any way. There are no comparable Co-ax and non Co-ax models - previous posters are comparing older priced models with current offerings - or worse quartz and Co-ax.
I'd liked to see a fully sorted (blue printed) co-ax movement regulated and timed over months but mass production is not going to cater to our/my needs and a special edition hand built Omega is out of my price range.
It's just a matter of time...
Agreed, Omega would have put up their prices anyway, but the co-axials have been priced significantly higher since their introduction so I think my point's a valid one. Pricewise, Omega have put a premium on the co-axial models; based on the performance of their offerings to date I don`t think it's justified. However, the latest versions might redress the situation.......but I still think they are overpricing some models and trying to take the brand further upmarket.
Paul
Which game? Sales?
Also the expected theoretical performance is totally unproven. Evidence based is a shift from a daily deviation to the order of wheekly, which is STAGGERING but nowhere near monthly let alone a 365% step to yearly.
The perspective is that an F-91W costs 10 euros. Needs a battery after 7 which costs 1 euro and when the third is going you chuck it away.
Oh and tc quartz unregulated is 10 secs. year and 5 tweaked. The latter at a mite over 2000 euros and with a 50 year service interval.
Cheap heq does 20 secs./year and costs $250 in a prospex diver case.
The closer spec well regulated co-axial would cost how much?
A commercially available special hand tweaked co-axial improving on Observatory Chrono standard would be a wónderfull excersize in horlogy and a remarkeble feat befitting the invention but far from back in the game.
Yes I hope that Omega will get it done, think they shoúld but it will not shift ánything on a significant scale in the market.
Seems Omega believes a standard movement inside a foot-wide case is more tempting (see thread about the new XXXXXXXXXXXXXL).
Whilst the engineers at Omega probably share a wish-list with fine horologists, their marketers sure don't. Plus ca change, and all that.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I see your points, and, of course, Omega, or rather Hayek and Swatch, are going to be looking to their balance sheets to some degree. However, I really do believe that Swatch are genuinely interested in moving mechanical horology forwards for its own sake. Swatch group are not a just a broad holding of fashion, jewellery and other Veblen brands. They have remained first and foremost a horological group. I do think they care about horology in a way that, for example: LVMH (Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton S.A.) simply do not. The precedents of today's Swatch group read like a roll call of great Swiss houses: Longines, Lemania, Breguet, Omega, Blancpain and so on.
It is easy to forget that Omega were one of the great manufactures before the 'quartz crisis' of the early seventies. Hayak has stated again and again that (when he is not legally harassing our host) one of his visions is to see Omega return to that position of pre-eminence.
As for tuning the coaxial. Once you get into economies of scale and new technologies I really don't think it is that big a deal. I really think most people have failed to notice just how stable the bog standard already 2500 is. I would hope that the 8500 is more stable and I am certain that the 8601 with a silicon balance spring is not only going to be more stable still, but by using technology that is usually associated with manufacturing silicon chips in processes several orders of magnitude finer than metallurgy can accomplish, it is going to be manufactured to tolerances that are simply inaccessible to anyone working in metal - which includes Daniels and his five seconds a year claim!Oh and tc quartz unregulated is 10 secs. year and 5 tweaked. The latter at a mite over 2000 euros and with a 50 year service interval.
Cheap heq does 20 secs./year and costs $250 in a prospex diver case. The closer spec well regulated co-axial would cost how much?
So yes, I do think that Omega will be able to 'grow' springs and balances that are both rather cheap and that consistently stable. I could be writing this on a six core processor made on a 45 NM scale with tolerances measured in atoms yet costing less than £150. Meanwhile Omega could be using the (patented 2006) Breguet overcoil silicon spring and balance manufactured using essentially the same technique as the new AMD chip. It wouldn't be the first time Omega have used Breguet overcoil springs.
So yes. I am quite certain that the average 2500 is already astonishingly stable. With regulation, my experience is in the same ball park as discussed in the article. Any coaxial owner merely needs to ask themselves how steady the deviation of their watch is. The answer is reliably surprising. When a watch is reliably +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 on the wrist then it could as easily be +0 with a little regulation. The coaxial can already manage seconds a week accuracy and the weakest point is currently regulating to that level or accuracy. I believe that Omega are on top of that problem with the Si14 technology.
Here's what the silicon balance looks like:
an here is part of Omega's 2008 press release:
and Breguet's 2006 press release:In 2008, OMEGA’s has taken the next step in its quest to create state-of-the-industry mechanical watches produced on an industrial scale: the introduction of the Si 14 silicon balance-spring, named for the chemical symbol and the atomic number for silicon.
Silicon is non-magnetic so the performance of the Si 14 balance-spring is not disturbed by exposure to magnetic objects. This physical property of silicon allows watches with the Si 14 balance-spring to deliver significantly better chronometric performance than balance-springs made of traditional materials.
While the performance of mechanical watches tends to deviate over time as a result of small everyday shocks, these disturbances have very little effect on Si 14 silicon balance-springs.
There is substantial freedom in the fabrication of balance-springs made of silicon which allows the Si 14’s geometry to be modified for optimal isochronism, the quality of oscillations occurring in equal periods of time. This isochronous quality reduces the amount of deviation in the watch’s accuracy.
In short I would be utterly flabbergasted if Omega R&D bods are not, at this moment, wearing (or at the very least testing) watches that can be manufactured within an acceptable price range to be as accurate as the very very best of TC quartz. The 'grown' silicon balance spring, will, in time (if not already) be cheaper to manufacture to a far, far higher spec than a glycadur/ nivarox balance and spring. Once again, the pricing will come down to the market, not the technology.In 2006, Breget introduced its first wristwatches with silicon balance spring and escapement. It combines the advantages and qualities of the earlier experiments. Silicon also possesses advantages of its own:
• Silicon is totally impervious to magnetic fields. Practical measurements have confirmed that when exposed to over twice the magnetic influence mandated by NIHS standards, silicon posted results 15 times better than the standard.
• The manufacturing operations of a silicon balance spring yield a broad variety of shapes, facilitating the highly accurate adaptation of its shape to precisely calculated models. The gap between two silicon coils can be varied according to the spring’s specific function because silicon springs are produced by direct in-depth etching of silicon wafers and not by spiral winding like metal springs.
• Silicon balance springs are lighter than metal ones and thus less prone to deformation caused by the pull of gravity. They are also less vulnerable to shocks and provide far superior resistance to corrosion.
• Components fashioned from silicon are subjected to a special process that greatly improves their resistance to handling and shocks.
(However, to be fair, TC quartz has been resting on its laurels since about 1975. A thermoinsensitive HF lenticular quartz with TC could be accurate to seconds a decade.) I have to confess that I would interested to know where you could get a Seiko 9f that was tuned to five seconds a year, rather than the more usual twenty, for under 2000 euros. I concede that you can get very cheap quartz and even fairly cheap TC quartz (my favourite cheap TC quartz is the E510 in the Citizen Exceed, a far more interesting movement than the Seiko offerings). but I would hope that on TZ - UK the answer is 'so what'? If it isn't, then we may as well just use our mobile phones and be done with it. I really am a fan of TC quartz but, the idea of a mechanical watch that can achieve seconds a year is a very exciting one. If this:
is, at least theoretically, capable of fifteen seconds a year, then why is it so difficult to imagine the coaxial managing it?
The 8F is 20 at 250$.
The 9f is 10 and about 1800.
The Citizen is 5 for just over 2000.
And yes your observation that the 3rd generation heq has not been challenged to go anywhere forward since the 70-ties is correct. The Crystron Mega was 3 secs/year so the current state is pretty ... comfortable.
Save for a 50 years service interval (Seiko) or 10 year warranty (Citizen) no progress has been made.
The 9F was introduced in '93 and still is Seikos top in heq. The basic range in GS 9F models has seen a slight change' in hour markers only. Ditto 'The Citizen'. In itself gréat that Seiko and Citizen maintain a classic this long but it illustrates the status quo in heq like nothing else.
Bottom line is that co-axial is a revolution in mechanical movements. It would be great if Omega would get a next generation of chronometer accuracy on the market at a competetive price.
Untill then it has not happened.
Clock sized mechanical marine chronometers have happened and maybe co-axial is the key to size reduction.
Maybe. Untill that happens at a commercially viable scale it's theory.
Btw. I think that the heq 5 or 10 secs/year is very much ok. We do not need more accurate wristwatches And radio controlled is available too). They might be made a bit cheaper but they are quite accessible as they are.
It would be practical if mechanicals would get a step more accurate at an affordable price. Only for appreciation sake though as quartz is already there for 10 euros.
I just realised that apart from CAD-CAM and space age material there is another difference since the sixties. Where Girard Perregaux and Seiko squeezed their Observatory Chronos in a 32-34 mm. case, Omega has 42-45 ánd more hight; twice the volume. That makes a world of difference as that is pocket watch format. The practical realisation has become a lot more feasable theory to me now :idea:
Heurtecilla, I'm sorry if I am coming across as confrontational. I just read back what I have written and I worry it sounds that way. I'm afraid that is sometimes how I seem to write.
Apart from your desire to gently moderate my coaxial evangelising, I think we are in broad agreement. I am a great fan of HEQ for precisely the same reason I am so impressed with the coaxial. I know you can get a chronomaster for £2000 but I'm not sure you can get a five seconds tuned 9F for that. The Omega Perpetual Calendar can be regulated down to about five seconds a year apparently, but again Omega don't bother. I am always slightly astonished when I see 8F watches on ebay for £30.
Frankly I have half a dozen working GP352 movements that show no evidence of having been serviced but still hit fifteen seconds a month and so I'm not so sure that the ten and fifty year service cycles are such a big deal! Quartz is just very reliable if not abused.
I'm off to a boot sale now.
No offence taken Matt but thanks for the wellmannered politeness nonetheless. Ditto here; not the least bit of offence meant.
Yes we are in agreement.
The co-axial ís a huge step and I would lóve it if Omega would produce a mechanical show case with it, allthough personally I will stick to my GS 9Fs which are véry affordable pre-owned since ´only a quartz Seiko´ :wink:
Have fun at the car boot sale. Hope you have the same luck as the guy who found a 5717 for a few bob.
I am planning a trip to Málaga nex weekend; saw that there are no less than three Omega AD´s within 500 metres in the town centre!
10 years since this thread
Has anyone regulated a 2500 to a second a month and has it being serviced ? Would be very interested to hear what the servicing has been like for owners of the 2500/2403s bought late noughties .
Posting Permissions
