Great article, but beware of their customer service https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/planet-ocean-2009-stops-needs-thumped-finger-start-1053143.htmlI was told every 7 years at an AD. This link has some good info. A Progression of Movements: Omega 2500 & 8500 Calibers | Bernard Watch Blog
Okay I'm going to put my flame suit on for this….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,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 ...
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 itOkay 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.
Well, we've established the service interval hasn't improved. Accuracy then? Smaller? Nope.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![]()
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 ;-)Well, we've established the service interval hasn't improved.
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.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![]()
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.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.
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).It is a scam ...
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.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.
Says the guy who's started ten threads in the last week about the new AT he wants so badly :roll:It is a scam ...
What are the benefits of the co-axial escapement ?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