Reply With QuoteI’ve never owned a 300m, the older ones haven’t aged gracefully IMO, however, the steel/gold one looks great - a 2254 in a posh frock :)
Haven`t had my hands on an Omega Seamaster Pro for a good few months, my own 2 have been in storage not getting worn. That changed a couple of weeks back and I`ve ended up with 4 on the bench and surrounding area!
The bi-metal is my own, dating from 2004, I dug it out recently to wear for a few days. At the same time the architect who did the design work on my extension passed me his 007 limited edition watch to sort out, a watch that's had a hard life and needed attention. I also took a 2531.80 in for service. The 4th one is a black Bond co-axial dating from 2009 which I`ve owned for several years and worn sparingly. Having never worked on an Omega co-axial I decided it was time that changed so I serviced the black Bond. It was interesting to see dried up lubricant on the co-axial wheel, in places where it shouldn't be, so the trace of lubricant originally applied had obviously spread or maybe was over-oiled from new. Despite this the watch was still running, but it's running far better after a full stripdown. The only daunting aspect of servicing this 2500C is the oiling of the co-axial wheel, it requires a microscope to check and a very steady hand to apply, it took me 2 goes to get a satisfactory result. Removing and replacing the balance requires a different technique from normal and care must be taken to avoid damaging anything.
The 007 Ltd edition watch has the same 2500c movement, I'd assumed it was the older cal 1120 when I agreed to sort it out but having serviced my own I was happy to tackle it. That's now running nicely and it'll be back with the owner soon, I owed the guy a favour for helping my stepdaughter resolve some issues recently with building work that didn`t go well.
The Bond 2531.80, with the cal 1120 movement, was straightforward to service, it's identical to the 2500C co-axial apart from the escapement parts and 2 of the train wheels to accommodate the lower beat rate. These movements are a joy to work on, an excellent design in my view.
I`ve aired my views on the co-axial development many times, suffice to say I'm not a fan and having now worked on one I haven`t changed my opinion. Positional agreement is no better than the 1120, the co-axial is tricky to regulate (special tool and a very steady hand required) and if that's done wrongly the poise of the balance will be spoiled. It's a clever piece of design and it does reduce the friction in the escapement compared to a conventional lever design, but I think the claim for a longer service interval was far-fetched. I also think the design is less tolerant to wear in the longer term. The free-sprung balance that goes with the design is OK, I like that even though the regulation (Rolex style) with screws on the balance rim is a pain, upgrading the 1120 in this manner without the co-axial escapement would've made more sense.
The marketing potential of the co-axial has been exploited to the full, the later cal 8500 movement has much to praise it, but don't be fooled into thinking the co-axial escapement improves the performance to any extent. It's a v. interesting design but a pointless development in my view. Omega deserve credit for making it work and sticking with it after the early versions had issues, the changes introduced during production of the 2500 makes interesting reading and it would've been easier to allow it to quietly die.
Its been interesting to have 4 pre-ceramic SMPs around at the same time. The co-axials have a slightly deeper caseback (0.8mm) for reasons that aren`t obvious other than the logo change. The skeleton hands are slightly longer compared to the 2531.80, which together with the applied Omega logo looks a bit better. I prefer the black Bond to the blue, the 007 version does nothing for me at all with the silly seconds hand design and swirly dial. My own bimetal model is a bit left-field and will split opinions, it's a rare one and I like it, I also have the original blue dial for it but prefer the black, which is identical to the 2254.50.
One minor difference between versions is the height of the hands, on the co-axials the hr hand sits higher above the dial. As the dial side needed no redesign I assume this is to give more clearance over the applied logo. It also means the cannon pinion and hr wheel and centre seconds wheel are specific to the 2500C. I recall fitting the Americas cup-style dial, with applied logo and indices, to a couple of 2254.50s in the past, it was a popular mod, and I remember the clearance for the hands was tight!
There are other watches I prefer, I`m not really a dive watch fan, but I like the pre-ceramic SMPs. Far nicer than the later versions in my view and certainly far more affordable back in the day!
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 8th October 2022 at 12:36.
I’ve never owned a 300m, the older ones haven’t aged gracefully IMO, however, the steel/gold one looks great - a 2254 in a posh frock :)
Interesting post. I really like that bimetal version and haven’t seen one before. One to try at some point!
For me the 2254 is still the best Seamaster and would love an updated version around the same size with the same oyster style bracelet but with adjustments.
Thanks for the post Paul. It’s interesting in that I think Omega were using the 2500 era of movements almost like an experiment to get to where we are now with the latest METAS co axials. Will be interesting to see where they go from here in terms of future developments.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Amen to that! The first bit anyway.Originally Posted by Ghost Chilli
Last edited by unclealec; 8th October 2022 at 17:03.
A really interesting summary, many thanks for posting. I had no idea that the much-lauded coaxial movement was such a swine to work on.
Last edited by Barchettaman; 8th October 2022 at 13:45. Reason: Double post.
A genuinely interesting read, and encouraging to know we have someone here who knows better than George Daniels and Omega combined
We’ll never know what really went on during the development and lifetime of the 2500, but it’s fair to say the original incarnation was launched to market too early, easy to say in hindsight. Reducing the beat rate was a key step, dropping to 25200 for the 2500C. Changes to the balance pivot diameter and the diameter of the balance itself also occurred, together with a change of mainspring and barrel which reverted back to the 1120 spec, which makes life easier if a new mainspring and barrel are needed.
I think the 2500C was fairly well- sorted and the reliability problems had been solved. However, the 2500D followed, using a redesigned co- axial wheel in the escapement, which carried over into the 8500. At some stage the decision to develop the in- house 8500 was taken and it may be argued that the 2500D was an opportunity to prove the latest co- axial change prior to the 8500 launch.
It would be interesting to know whether Omega replace the co- axial wheel routinely when servicing these watches, particularly the 2500 series, wouldn’t surprise me!
My opinion is exactly that, an opinion. The co -axial escapement has less friction than a conventional lever and should be less reliant on lubrication ( Daniels design used no oil), but how does this translate into better timekeeping? Arguably, the timekeeping may remain stable over a longer period, but I don’t see how the design contributes to improved precision versus a conventional lever escapement. Omega stuck with the design and made it work, but how much of this was driven by marketing? It remains a unique selling point and is likely to remain so, which can be portrayed as an advantage to the buyer.A genuinely interesting read, and encouraging to know we have someone here who knows better than George Daniels and Omega combined
Ironic that the Daniels design used no lubricant, but the Omega interpretation relies on v. careful application of a straightforward watch oil (HP1300, originally D5) for correct function and longevity. A lever escapement uses special lubricant which is almost thixotropic and changes viscosity under shear, these lubricants have been around for approx 30 years, but the co- axial uses a more conventional general purpose oil which surprises me, I would’ve expected Moebius , who are owned by Swatch, to have developed a specific lubricant for the co- axial.
My responses to this has not changed in a decade. So here they are again:
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...=1#post1275632
Both of mine (both deliberately 2500B) are still going strong. One serviced three times now, one unserviced (curious minds must know) from new. There is a case for the 1120 based upon diminishing returns as there's no denying that it is good enough and easy to look after. However, if you want the best mechanical accuracy money can buy, there still is no other game in town that comes close to the Daniels' Coaxial Escapement. Sure, a Cessna 150 will get you in the air, but who wouldn't want to strap on a Spitfire?
The theory's fine, but I’ve I’ve handled a few 2500C watches and the positional agreement has been no better than a well- adjusted 1120 or 2892, of which I’ve handled many. The free- sprung balance should confer advantages but in the I’ve had I don’t see it. Yes, the positional variation has met COSC criteria but not by an impressive margin.
However......despite figures that are no better than 1120 powered watches my black Bond has gained a mere 5 seconds in 6 days of constant wear after reassembling it. Maybe I got lucky on the regulation at the first attempt. It seemed to have settle to constant rate within a few hrs of running, which pleased me, possibly that’s a characteristic of the co- axial escapement.
Given the mystique around these movements it’s rewarding to gave stripped one down and got to grips with it, literally stripping away the mystique.
Will I be in a hurry to service another?............no chance! Having bitten the bullet I’d be happy to buy one for myself and work on it, but that’s all.
For some reason I seem to have taken a liking to the Seamaster GMT 50th Anniversary 2534.50, but the mostly seem to be bonkers prices now.
Sent from my HD1910 using Tapatalk
A great writeup so thanks.
I have a soft spot for Omega.
I have a couple of Omegas.
The first was a PO that I have gave to my son when he graduated (in fact just it's just gone in to Omega for a first service after 8 years)
And last year I got the the Seamaster Tokyo edition which I love the dial, hand colour I love on this and.is actually one of my favourite watches.
I've heard others say they won't work on coaxial movements. As a user I think they are great, my po is almost 10 and gains a second a day, my 300smp is a year old and gains about the same, both utterly reliable, same gain whatever I'm doing with them.
Tbf, my pelagos (in house movement) and the sw200 in my Christopher ward are almost as accurate. It's only my seiko that is more variable...what a surprise.
I'm curious. How did stripping the watch down strip away the mystique? I would note that I didn't just refer to theory, I referred to the work of one of this country's finest:
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/re...k-worlds-most-
I’ll try and clarify what I meant by stripping away the mystique: I find it far easier to relate to how a watch, or any machine, works by taking it to pieces, it gives me a perspective I don’t get from looking at diagrams. In this case, when the co- axial escapement parts are stripped out and laid on the workbench they simply become watchparts, no more or less. It becomes obvious why the balance has to be removed in a certain way too, there’s no substitute for getting hands-on. Working on the 2500C is tricky but isn’t daunting if you understand the pitfalls and trust your skill level. I’d be happy to work on these again if parts availability wasn’t an issue, but that won’t change.
The only co- axial I own is back on my wrist, running like a good ‘un. Having had it in pieces I now regard it as just another watch, the Daniels connection means nothing to me, that’s old news, it’s a pile of reassembled pieces just like all my other watches.
I have (sort of) 3 out of the 4 you show there. I haven't noticed the two tone one before but I have the Non-AC with the white gold bezel insert so very similar. I too prefer the longer hands of the black Co-ax over the stubbies on the 2531 and I too think the Bond LE is a bit of a farce and that is the one I skipped! What is the model number of the two tone, I rather like it.
Last edited by Padders; 8th October 2022 at 23:58.
Can’t remember the model reference for the bimetal, I have the box and papers packed away but I’ll have a look and note it down. Mine originally had an electric blue dial and white date wheel, I acquired a black dial in mint condition for a good price from a contact and eventually fitted it together with a black date wheel. There are no gold bits on the dial so it’s interchangeable from a steel watch.
I’ve never owned a blue- dialled 2531.80, never appealed to me, but when the black Bond was launched around 2008/9 I really liked it and ended up buying mine second- hand in 2012/13, can’t remember exactly. I also owned a 2254.50 which I put on a Bond bracelet, that was a nice watch which in hindsight I should’ve kept.
2455.80
An interesting insight, Paul. Thanks for sharing.
I've owned a few 1120 and 2500 and all have performed admirably. I've never had any of them serviced and they all still keep great time. Both POs I've owned were/are 2500c and I've never experienced an issue with either.
I also like the bi-metal. I have a non AC chrono version
Great thread. I have nowt to contribute but enjoying very much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I really like my 2254.50, it’s good to read that the 1120 movement is a great workhorse that is easy to service, must get mine done at some point, it keeps great time but I have no history so for piece of mind I would like it freshly serviced at some point..
Excellent thread, really detailed and held my interest not only due to the expertise, time & effort placed on these pieces but more so, I own the 300m 2220:80 co-axil which was my first luxury watch (purchased new back in 2006) and it still going strong to this day.
Cheers Paul. And I appreciate your pragmatic analysis.
Martyn.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
I have a 2500D SMPc which I got as a graduation gift in 2011.
I'm not very happy with it's reliability.
It ran beautifully when new. I have honestly never seen such consistency from a Mechanical movement. No matter what position or state of wind it would run at +1 sec./day or better.
In 2016, it started acting up. Basically, stopping and re-starting, being hard to start and suffering from low PR. Basically the 'stopping issue' there was with some of the previous movements. A watchmaker on WUS and Omega themselves had told me that this previous issue was solved with the introduction of the tri-level co-axial escapement (similar to the later 8500), so it was not possible that it was this same issue.
I sent it to Omega in Bienne directly for a full service. After service, I inquired what was the issue and they claimed that it was just through normal 'wear and tear'. They also added that the case, bezel and bracelet showed considerable wear (which was true), implying that it did have somewhat of a hard life, hence the issue and requirement for service.
I don't baby my watches, I swim & dive in them and wear them pretty much 24/7. But it was worn in rotation of another 6 or more watches, so it was not being worn all the time.
Late last year is started acting in exactly the same manner. In November I am taking it myself to an Omega approved watch maker in Italy. Hopefully, he will be more open with what the issue is.
None the less, I love the watch and think it's a great classic, hence I do enjoy wearing it. Being a graduation gift, I will never sell it.
Omega & Cha_4 by etienne spiteri, on Flickr
Omega & Cha_3 by etienne spiteri, on Flickr
I get that this a tad underwhelming, but you have a watch with a 5 year service interval, that you use fairly hard, that appears to need servicing every 5 years. Doesn't seem wildly surprising to me.
True, it's not bad. But others I have, used in same conditions, go for 8 years or more before I decide to service. They do not just suddenly stop.
Thanks Paul, good to hear an insiders take on them.
What a great read OP, love insights like this. Thanks.
I`m 'SMP'd out' at the moment, I`ll be seeing them in my sleep!
My bimetal version has now gone back into storage, might swap the dial back to the blue next time it comes out.
The 2531.80 will be re-united with it's owner this evening. The 007 Ltd version should be back with the owner (my architect buddy) soon.
The black Bond is still on my wrist, having gained around 11 secs in 9 days. That'll be back in storage shortly, I like to run a watch for at least a week after service and it's passed that test, if it was going to do something untoward it would've happened by now. The decision whether to keep it or sell it has to be made, having spent a week with it I've decided I like it more than I thought!
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 11th October 2022 at 13:12.
I've got the blue and black (sword) versions and they are probably my favourite watches.
The design/quality is excellent even though the bezel can be a bear to move easily they don't look like a Sub - a - like as so many divers do.
I will add that a watch repair chap I know wasn't all that complimentary about the co-axials.
Cheers,
Neil.
Posting Permissions
