WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So are they improved? Does the coaxil technology extend the time between required service intervals?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,470 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Why is the service intervals stated as 4-5 years in Omega official FAQ ???

OMEGA Watches: FAQ

I thought the whole point of the coaxial escapement was to elongate the service intervals ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
736 Posts
Why is the service intervals stated as 4-5 years in Omega official FAQ ???

OMEGA Watches: FAQ

I thought the whole point of the coaxial escapement was to elongate the service intervals ...
Okay I'm going to put my flame suit on for this….
There is no point to the coaxial escapement other than great marketing. In theory, its an "advancement" of sorts, but in real world practical terms…not so much. It's more complicated and harder to service, with the same recommended service intervals.
If you live in a small city like me with very few independent watchmakers, good luck trying to find someone to service it. Especially now with Omega parts restrictions, most won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. It's Omega servicing or nothing.
If I ever buy an Omega, it will be a non-coaxial Speedmaster with a trusty 861 or 1861 that any competent watchmaker can service.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Why is the service intervals stated as 4-5 years in Omega official FAQ ???

OMEGA Watches: FAQ

I thought the whole point of the coaxial escapement was to elongate the service intervals ...
My understanding is, for 3 main reasons for Omega to want to be more conservative about the recommending a shorter service period,

1. Not all Omega Auto have 8500, instead many still have older gen movement, e.g. 2500, etc.
2. To reduce their liability.
3. Omega probably end up being the only one who can service their co-axial movement, and more servicing brings in more data for Omega to understand how the watch withstand real world use from real customer, plus a little extra revenue.

I personally have pretty strong conference on how robust the 8500 is. At least, just on the surface, 8500 does NOT have any of those glaring/obvious flaws the infamous 3135 has, which require really short (3 years) service intervals. The technical specs of 8500 is honestly industrial leading, a few AD I talked to even recommend 10 years service interval on these new 8500s.

However, we will have to wait for TIME to prove its legend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Okay I'm going to put my flame suit on for this….
There is no point to the coaxial escapement other than great marketing. In theory, its an "advancement" of sorts, but in real world practical terms…not so much. It's more complicated and harder to service, with the same recommended service intervals.
If you live in a small city like me with very few independent watchmakers, good luck trying to find someone to service it. Especially now with Omega parts restrictions, most won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. It's Omega servicing or nothing.
If I ever buy an Omega, it will be a non-coaxial Speedmaster with a trusty 861 or 1861 that any competent watchmaker can service.
Sorry man, what you said makes no sense. The technical advantage of co-axial is so obvious, please do some homework first. Why would I want to save a few bucks by sending a 8500 to a local watchmaker? NO thanks, I prefer Omega's specialist handle it :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I feel disappointed ... I remember the whole point of the co axial was to elongate the service intervals ... Now it is a complication without a real benefit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
736 Posts
Sorry man, what you said makes no sense. The technical advantage of co-axial is so obvious, please do some homework first. Why would I want to save a few bucks by sending a 8500 to a local watchmaker? NO thanks, I prefer Omega's specialist handle it :)
Well, we've established the service interval hasn't improved. Accuracy then? Smaller? Nope.
If there's a practical benefit at this stage, I don't see it.
Using indepedant watchmakers isn't just about saving money (although that's a benefit). It's about having the choice if I don't want Omega servicing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Well, we've established the service interval hasn't improved.
nope, not established at all, 8500 was first introduced in 2007, there is simply not enough data at this moment, to illustrate how well/bad the 8500 does after 7 years. However, there is NO story/evidence/data anywhere to show anything bad about 8500 so far, which is a good sign ;-)

All that you have said above is merely your opinions/feelings, not real data/facts.

Like I said, time will prove 8500's legend, given its impressive specs on the paper and how confident Omega is advertising it. I have no difficult seeing it proved a much more robust movement than 3135 after 20 years :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
My watch guy in the East Bay says his watchmaker has to use a 10x microscope to work on the co-ax movements (which may have been an exaggeration for storytelling purposes, or more or less true), and so usually sends co-ax pieces to Omega. A local guy might be able to get your watch back in a couple weeks, but if it's sent to Omega that could be 8-12 weeks depending on where you live. Not saying that's good or bad, but it IS something to consider if you want options when it comes time to service.

It wouldn't stop me personally from buying one, though. That 8500 is frickin beautiful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
736 Posts
nope, not established at all, 8500 was first introduced in 2007, there is simply not enough data at this moment, to illustrate how well/bad the 8500 does after 7 years. However, there is NO story/evidence/data anywhere to show anything bad about 8500 so far, which is a good sign ;-)

All that you have said above is merely your opinions/feelings, not real data/facts.

Like I said, time will prove 8500's legend, given its impressive specs on the paper and how confident Omega is advertising it. I have no difficult seeing it proved a much more robust movement than 3135 after 20 years :)
Yes, it is my opinion only. My concern is with the coaxial not the 8500 per sé, which I have no doubt is a beautifully made movement with the finest, most advanced materials Omega can muster.
However, common sense tells me there are more working parts of a watch than just the coaxial. As such, 4-5 yr service interval remains on Omegas own website. If that's not a fact then it's Omega's opinion.
So if I've a 7yr old watch now due for service, should I just ignore it and hope for the best?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,553 Posts
when the coaxial escapement first came out, omega advertised a 10 year service interval due to reduced wear on the escapement... but then it became apparent that other parts of the watch were still being oiled, and oil still deteriorates over time. in the end, the only way anyone can ever make a watch that truly doesn't need servicing is if there is no need for oiling, or the oil lasts forever. for now, both options are impossible, and oil really only lasts 5 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
736 Posts
when the coaxial escapement first came out, omega advertised a 10 year service interval due to reduced wear on the escapement... but then it became apparent that other parts of the watch were still being oiled, and oil still deteriorates over time. in the end, the only way anyone can ever make a watch that truly doesn't need servicing is if there is no need for oiling, or the oil lasts forever. for now, both options are impossible, and oil really only lasts 5 years.
That's my understanding also. Perhaps Sinn's Diapal lubrication free anchor escapement is the answer, but once again it doesn't solve the problem of all the other watch components that still require lubrication.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
I initially thought the coax movement was a semi-desperate attempt at a money grab, a mildly creative anachronism that provided answers to questions nobody serious about actual timekeeping was still asking after Quartz made mechanicals obsolete.

However I was too swift to judge! After all this time that he coax has been out, and having thought about it more and, let's face it, getting 7 years older like everyone... I like it less.

Neither of my Ω watches has a coax. Service intervals are now officially back to pre-coax periods, accuracy is of course still uncompetitive -- even Quartz watches are now getting beaten by mobile phones -- and all that's left is more money to Ω from fashion victims, and more illogical statements online presented as... fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
736 Posts
It is a scam ...
Well, no I don't believe that it is. The 8500 is by all accounts a great movement. It's just unfortunate that the advantages the coaxial escapement theoretically brings, hasn't quite translated into any measurable improvements (yet).
But when a company has invested so much time and money and reputation on an idea, they just have to keep going.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
My watch guy in the East Bay says his watchmaker has to use a 10x microscope to work on the co-ax movements (which may have been an exaggeration for storytelling purposes, or more or less true), and so usually sends co-ax pieces to Omega. A local guy might be able to get your watch back in a couple weeks, but if it's sent to Omega that could be 8-12 weeks depending on where you live. Not saying that's good or bad, but it IS something to consider if you want options when it comes time to service.

It wouldn't stop me personally from buying one, though. That 8500 is frickin beautiful.
10X is not nearly enough magnification to oil a co-axial escapement. You really need a high quality 50X binocular microscope, with good lighting from above and below the movement, and a good working distance under the lens, to do it properly. Not to mention the special holder for the movement that is used, and of course the knowledge/skill to do the work.

The amount of oil you place on each tooth of the co-axial wheel is orders of magnitude smaller than any other oiling task in watchmaking that I have ever seen.

Cheers, Al
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
10X is not nearly enough magnification to oil a co-axial escapement. You really need a high quality 50X binocular microscope, with good lighting from above and below the movement, and a good working distance under the lens, to do it properly. Not to mention the special holder for the movement that is used, and of course the knowledge/skill to do the work.

The amount of oil you place on each tooth of the co-axial wheel is orders of magnitude smaller than any other oiling task in watchmaking that I have ever seen.

Cheers, Al
What are the benefits of the co-axial escapement ?
 
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Top