1 Yes
2 In house, the 8500 is not based on an ETA ebauche
3 They're all very nice. JLC is most traditional. IWC is mostly traditional aside from the unique winding mechanism. 8500 is new, and the differences are well publicised.
4 No idea, the reality of maintenance costs is just dependent on the policies of the manufacturer -- you could always ask them for quotes for repair/service.
5 My bet is that they're all reliable, accurate timekeepers.

 

Thanks for all of your response...

I actually selected all of these watches based on aesthetic preferences, but was trying to diistinguish what was "under the hood" so to speak.

• IWC Ingenieur Vintage 323301 (Calibre 80111)
• JLC Master Control 139.81.20 (Calibre 899)
• Omega De Ville Hour Vision 431.30.41.21.02.001 (Calibre 8500)
• Grand Seiko SBGL017 (Calibre 9S67)

The only watch that I have been able to see in the flesh so far is the Omega. They are all in a similar price range. I have spoken with a few ADs so far. I am an engineer and was particularly interested in finding out more about the movements.

I did check the Orbita database to learn something in regard to the ability to charge the movements. The IWC, Omega amd Grand Seiko all can be maintained with 650-800 rotations in both directions but the JLC prefers counter clockwise at 800-950 turns per day. I am an uncertain how this relates to the efficiency of the rotor- winding mechanism or friction in the kinematics of the system.

Honestly, none of these pieces will be as accurate as my Citizen so its really about as you stated aesthetics. But because watches are personal accesories and objects of desire, the engineering and manufacture of the piece means a lot to me. I also value the relationship with the AD in the end as well.

 

I own an Omega Hour Vision and a Grand Seiko SBGR037 so I'll talk about those two's movements.

The Co-axial 8500 is NOT truly an in-house movement per say, as shown in this quote below during Omega's press release of the Hour Vision:

In an admirable show of honesty, Mr. Monachon also cautioned us that although the calibre 8500/8501 are completely designed and developed within OMEGA Granges, it is dangerous to call the movement completely in-house manufactured. Without the help and assistant of Comadur, Nivarox, ETA and Frederick Piguet - all within the Swatch Group, the success of this calibre and the Deville Hour Vision model would not have been possible. The objective is to manufacture the complete movement and watch within OMEGA premises but at the moment, only assembly is done within the OMEGA compound.

The whole purpose of the 8500 was for Omega to finally build a movement from ground up around the Co-axial movement, and not simply slap it onto an existing movement. The level of difference this makes in performance compared to the Co-axial 2500 which IS a modified ETA movement with the Co-axial slapped in clearly shows up in usage. My particular Hour Vision sample ended up at -4 seconds over the course of two weeks. It is by far the most accurate mechanical I have ever owned. I did own an Aqua Terra with the Co-axial 2500 and its accuracy was nearly +6 seconds a day.

Other things going for the Co-axial 8500 would be the double mainspring barrels, which makes for quite a long power reserve, the stunning fan-like "arabesque" Côtes de Genève finish which is unique to the Co-axial 8500 currently, and the fact that the presence of the Co-axial movement should allow the Hour Vision to go for extended periods of time without a service. However being a flagship movement, and being quite complex, I would expect the cost of a movement service to be quite high, when it comes time. Omega's U.S. service center is also not particularly known for being very good at servicing, so expect to have to ship the watch back to Omega HQ in Bienne, Switzerland.

I don't have as much to say about the Grand Seiko's 9S55 movement. It's a movement that has been around for the last 10 years, and as such is quite mature and reliable. As of last year, Seiko further refined it with some upgrades with increased its power reserve to 50 hours. This was done for the limited edition SBGR037 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the 9S55 movement. My sample of that runs at around -1 seconds a day. Finishing of the movement is not bad, but not as nice as the Co-axial 8500 IMO.

 

Thanks very much for sharing your experiences with the Omega and the GS. Also, thank you for clarifying the 8500 movement as being Swatch proprietary as opposed to being Omega in-house. I am not sure that these distinctions matter much, At least to me.

The fact that the 8500 was designed from the ground up around the escapement is a good thing. The added complexity of two barrels and additional parts will only be known over time I suppose. Having to send it back to Bienne is probably the right thing today. In 5 years, when Omega has rolled out the movement into many watches, perhaps the US service center will be able to compitently service it (I know, I have heard some bad stories about the NJ center).

The GS watch I am looking at has a calibre 9S67 with an increased power reserve of 72 hours on a single barrel. It sounds as if they are both of your watches are equally outstanding timekeepers from what you describe. You said the the HV had a nicer finished movement. Below, I have linked a photo of a case back of a SBGR037 showing a 9S55 as you have and a SBGL001 which has a 9S67 similar to the SBGL017 that I am interested in. I also found an image of an 8500 seen on a HV case back.

The Omega is definitely the most finish detail of the bunch. The 9S67 is similar to the 9S55 in finish. How do the case, braclet and faces compare in terms of fit and finish?

Thanks Again,

Bob

I own an Omega Hour Vision and a Grand Seiko SBGR037 so I'll talk about those two's movements.

The Co-axial 8500 is NOT truly an in-house movement per say, as shown in this quote below during Omega's press release of the Hour Vision:

The whole purpose of the 8500 was for Omega to finally build a movement from ground up around the Co-axial movement, and not simply slap it onto an existing movement. The level of difference this makes in performance compared to the Co-axial 2500 which IS a modified ETA movement with the Co-axial slapped in clearly shows up in usage. My particular Hour Vision sample ended up at -4 seconds over the course of two weeks. It is by far the most accurate mechanical I have ever owned. I did own an Aqua Terra with the Co-axial 2500 and its accuracy was nearly +6 seconds a day.

Other things going for the Co-axial 8500 would be the double mainspring barrels, which makes for quite a long power reserve, the stunning fan-like "arabesque" Côtes de Genève finish which is unique to the Co-axial 8500 currently, and the fact that the presence of the Co-axial movement should allow the Hour Vision to go for extended periods of time without a service. However being a flagship movement, and being quite complex, I would expect the cost of a movement service to be quite high, when it comes time. Omega's U.S. service center is also not particularly known for being very good at servicing, so expect to have to ship the watch back to Omega HQ in Bienne, Switzerland.

I don't have as much to say about the Grand Seiko's 9S55 movement. It's a movement that has been around for the last 10 years, and as such is quite mature and reliable. As of last year, Seiko further refined it with some upgrades with increased its power reserve to 50 hours. This was done for the limited edition SBGR037 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the 9S55 movement. My sample of that runs at around -1 seconds a day. Finishing of the movement is not bad, but not as nice as the Co-axial 8500 IMO.

 

I think the IWC is a very highly modified ETA. IWC was in-house back in the days that the caliber 89 was their workhorse, but I don't think they make any movements from scratch nowadays. The JLC is in-house for sure, and they're called the "watchmaker's watch" because of their quality and craftsmanship. Seiko is so completely in-house they even make their own lubricants (and screws I believe).

Okay, from a personal standpoint I own at least one from every brand you asked about:
Seiko: an Orange Monster (what a value! ...and what a great beater!)
IWC: Spitfire Mark XV, vintage caliber 89 dress watch
JLC: vintage model 2285 with a manual wind 883
Omega: Aqua Terra with caliber 2500, 1959/60 Seamaster caliber 591, 1961 pie pan with caliber 561, vintage 1950 Seamaster bumper, and a Geneve & De Ville from the 60's. I've owned others but sold them. oops

So it's obvious I like Omega. :roll: I think they are one of the best vintage companies to collect. I'm waiting to see if the 8500 is all it's touted as because I'd really like to see Omega rise all the way back to the prominence they had previous to the quartz revolution. IWC has their place in the market, and they are very popular in Europe from what I understand. But unless you live in Europe that don't matter now, does it? Seiko has almost a cult following. LOVE MY MONSTER! I just can't bring myself to buy one of their higher end pieces and for the life of me I can't understand why! I'm not an elitist snob, I have a little better than average understanding of the hobby and workings of the movements, and I appreciate a good presentation like the GS has. So why why WHY don't I own one?!?!? (I'll tell you if I ever figure it out) That leaves JLC. The ONLY watch to date I have ever sent back to the main factory is the 2285. I felt it would be not only nice to restore a watch that was a week from being melted for the gold & parted out, but financially prudent (yes, I said that) because of the beauty and quality of the watch. Hell, a NEW M.U.T. in 18K will run way more than what I'll have into the 2285 after it's all said & done.

Conclusion: You really can't make a mistake with any of the brands you are considering. If it were me, I'd go JLC. |>

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I had a chance to see the IWC at an AD yesterday. I did not find the face terribly legible nor was I impressed at the level of movement finish. I also got to see a De Ville Hour Vision. Very nice watch in person. A definite contendor.

To confuse things, I am also now looking at some Glashutte Original models. I am looking at a Senator Sixties and a Panorama Date. So I am really looking a craftsmen watches (JLC and GO) and high-engineering production watches (Omega and Grand Seiko).

Thanks Again for your thoughts!

Bob

I think the IWC is a very highly modified ETA. IWC was in-house back in the days that the caliber 89 was their workhorse, but I don't think they make any movements from scratch nowadays. The JLC is in-house for sure, and they're called the "watchmaker's watch" because of their quality and craftsmanship. Seiko is so completely in-house they even make their own lubricants (and screws I believe).

Okay, from a personal standpoint I own at least one from every brand you asked about:
Seiko: an Orange Monster (what a value! ...and what a great beater!)
IWC: Spitfire Mark XV, vintage caliber 89 dress watch
JLC: vintage model 2285 with a manual wind 883
Omega: Aqua Terra with caliber 2500, 1959/60 Seamaster caliber 591, 1961 pie pan with caliber 561, vintage 1950 Seamaster bumper, and a Geneve & De Ville from the 60's. I've owned others but sold them. oops

So it's obvious I like Omega. :roll: I think they are one of the best vintage companies to collect. I'm waiting to see if the 8500 is all it's touted as because I'd really like to see Omega rise all the way back to the prominence they had previous to the quartz revolution. IWC has their place in the market, and they are very popular in Europe from what I understand. But unless you live in Europe that don't matter now, does it? Seiko has almost a cult following. LOVE MY MONSTER! I just can't bring myself to buy one of their higher end pieces and for the life of me I can't understand why! I'm not an elitist snob, I have a little better than average understanding of the hobby and workings of the movements, and I appreciate a good presentation like the GS has. So why why WHY don't I own one?!?!? (I'll tell you if I ever figure it out) That leaves JLC. The ONLY watch to date I have ever sent back to the main factory is the 2285. I felt it would be not only nice to restore a watch that was a week from being melted for the gold & parted out, but financially prudent (yes, I said that) because of the beauty and quality of the watch. Hell, a NEW M.U.T. in 18K will run way more than what I'll have into the 2285 after it's all said & done.

Conclusion: You really can't make a mistake with any of the brands you are considering. If it were me, I'd go JLC. |>

 

The IWC 80110/80111 is the manufacture Pellaton-winding calibre of plain automatic (no complication/chronograph) flavor. It is NOT based on an ETA Ebauche like that used in the Pilot/Spitfire/Portofino (Based on ETA 2892) or the Chronos (Based on ETA 7750). The IWC 80XXX series are thick, robust calibres (7-8mm) and follow the same philosophy as the original Ingeneur (and to some extent one could argue Rolex) -- thick, wide tolerances, very robust. It is not a classicaly inspired movement like the JLC, nor technologically innovative like the 8500 (though the Pellaton winding system is unique to IWC, it is actually decades old and tried and proven). I don't believe the IWC is equipped with a free sprung balance either, so think of the IWC as the big robust workhorse of the three.

Again the JLC is very traditionally designed, so there is no major change from the way movements work (unlike the Pellaton winding system or the coaxial escapement), but it does incorporate some modern updates, like ceramic bearings and a laser welded stud and collet.

There are a LOT of resources on the 8500, since it's new and has been in the press a lot. Google can find you plenty of stuff on it.

On the JLC, Walt Odets had done a review on a JLC 891 powered IWC, which is a previous generation of the 899 but still very similar:
http://www.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium631654746221060378

On the 80110, the Purists have done a write-up on its introduction in the current generation Ingeneur:
http://www.p178host.com/iwcgallery/Ingenieur2005/_Inge2005.html

Hope it's helpful. I also recommend Walt's write-up on the JLC Ultra Thin, since it gives you an idea of how things are done at JLC.

 

real pics of my deville for those interested