WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
819 Posts
Funny, because I’ve read and heard the opposite - precision and machining are superior on Sellita. It’s also been said that Sellita move ents are manufactured on newer equipment, which results in tighter tolerances.
Sellita was the main outsourced producer of ETA movements. I would assume that the machining would be top-notch if Sellita was making movements for ETA. I would posit that Sellita would focus on making movements, not designing them. Their market is providing excellent movements based on time tested, off-patent designs rather than innovation, as mentioned in my previous post. The movements are in fact interchangeable.
I would assume that Sellita would strive to make the best movement possible, and I for one would be interested in any documentation of over-oiling. We're not talking runny XVOO here. I can't imagine a company that turned out ETA movements that never had such problems would all of a sudden over-oil movements that were in direct competition with ETA. I would think that over-oiling would be an issue with a particular watchmaker doing so, not a mass-produced movement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,486 Posts
Sellita was the main outsourced producer of ETA movements. I would assume that the machining would be top-notch if Sellita was making movements for ETA. I would posit that Sellita would focus on making movements, not designing them. Their market is providing excellent movements based on time tested, off-patent designs rather than innovation, as mentioned in my previous post. The movements are in fact interchangeable.
I would assume that Sellita would strive to make the best movement possible, and I for one would be interested in any documentation of over-oiling. We're not talking runny XVOO here. I can't imagine a company that turned out ETA movements that never had such problems would all of a sudden over-oil movements that were in direct competition with ETA. I would think that over-oiling would be an issue with a particular watchmaker doing so, not a mass-produced movement.
They literally are not. Selita made a number of design changes to the movement with the sole purpose of manufacturing efficiency (read; cost saving). You could not swap parts 1 for 1 with an ETA.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
I would chose an ETA movement if given a choice between the two just because it is what "I grew up with" and have had no issues.
I have a few watches with a Selitta movement. I don't mind. My understanding is they are easily serviceable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,220 Posts
They literally are not. Selita made a number of design changes to the movement with the sole purpose of manufacturing efficiency (read; cost saving). You could not swap parts 1 for 1 with an ETA.
The movements are interchangeable (you can replace a 2824 with an SW200 and vice versa).

How does adding an extra jewel bearing for the barrel arbor result in improved manufacturing efficiency or cost reduction?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,486 Posts
The movements are interchangeable (you can replace a 2824 with an SW200 and vice versa).

How does adding an extra jewel bearing for the barrel arbor result in improved manufacturing efficiency or cost reduction?
This video is an interesting watch... interview with a master watchmaker on ETA vs Selita.

The relevant portion starts at about 9:40


If you haven't got the time to watch; they changed the way the way the bridges are mounted entirely to save money, and it resulted in some teething issues and a higher failure rate. The watchmaker says he would choose ETA by a longshot over Selita.

It's not to say Selita are bad movements. Just I would personally stick with ETA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,220 Posts
This video is an interesting watch... interview with a master watchmaker on ETA vs Selita.

The relevant portion starts at about 9:40


If you haven't got the time to watch; they changed the way the way the bridges are mounted entirely to save money, and it resulted in some teething issues and a higher failure rate. The watchmaker says he would choose ETA by a longshot over Selita.

It's not to say Selita are bad movements. Just I would personally stick with ETA.

This is going to be a lengthy reply, but I want to make a two general points before delving into the content of the video.

1) First, the notion that changing a design to make it less expensive to manufacture will inherently make for an inferior or lower quality product is not necessarily true. There are multiple ways in which you can change a design to reduce manufacturing costs and some of them may actually INCREASE product quality. Methods to reduce production costs include:

-Change to looser production tolerances. In certain cases this can be quality neutral if tolerances originally specified were unreasonably tight (like making shovel heads to within .01mm when making them to the nearest 1mm is adequate for the purpose), but it's generally a net negative on quality. In terms of watches, looser tolerances mean worse fit/finish, greater misalignments of bezels/hands/chapter rings, wider accuracy deviations... Sounds a lot like the complaints frequently levied at Seiko, now that I think about it.

-Change to lower cost materials. Again, under certain circumstances this can be quality neutral if the original material specified was overkill for the application, but frequently this is a net negative. Lower cost materials frequently come with inferior material properties which mean they would be weaker, more prone to wear, more prone to corrosion, etc...

-Change the design to adopt Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) philosophy. DFMA is a design philosophy centered around making designs that are optimized for manufacturing and assembly. It espouses concepts like using common fasteners throughout a design to minimize the number of different tools that an assembly would need to use as well as minimize the chances of installing the wrong fastener in the wrong hole (in cases where you have numerous fasteners of the same thread size but different lengths). It also espouses error-proofing designs so that parts can only be installed the correct way and not upside-down or backwards, reducing the overall number of parts in an assembly, use of self-fixturing features designed into parts (like alignment pins) so that assembly fixtures and tooling can be minimized, and designing to make use of modern, automated assembly tools. DFMA is, at worst, quality neutral and frequently a net positive for product quality. If the product can't be put together incorrectly in the first place, it takes a lot of burden off of your QC to catch assembly errors. Also, automated assembly tools are more consistent than humans, so if you can leverage automated tooling you will have greater product consistency, which is a hallmark of good quality.

2) The next point I'd like to make is that the original designs from ETA that Sellita adopted were developed in the 1960s and 70s. Manufacturing processes and capabilities today are much more advanced than they were 40-50 years ago. Designs based around the manufacturing capabilities of 40-50 years ago are not necessarily optimized for compatibility with the capabilities we have today. So there is likely opportunity to make some small changes to those designs to make them more compatible with current manufacturing methods and capabilities which would both reduce manufacturing costs while not compromising, or even improving, product quality (DFMA philosophy).

Now, to the video. A few points I'd like to make

1) Frederico specifically mentions the SW300, not the SW200. I don't know about you, but I've never heard anything about widespread deficiencies in the SW300. I tried googling it, and I find nothing. Even on these forums, you find very few threads about SW300s having issues. Some of this, I'm sure, is because it's not nearly as common as the SW200. The SW200 has a history of shearing off ratchet wheel teeth, which was supposed to be addressed by a new tooth profile in the -1 version (but apparently still happens, just much less frequently).

2) With respect to the design changes, Hans specifically singles out that Sellita flipped the placement of the locating pins for the bridges. Essentially, if ETA put the pins in the main plate and holes in the bridges, Sellita did the opposite and put the pins in the bridges and holes in the main plate. He goes on to say "they changed some other stuff too", but he specifically singles out the change to the locating pins as the cause for problems. He doesn't explain what specific "problems" this change caused or why this change even caused issue. To me, someone who is advanced degrees in engineering with many years of experience, including routinely making use of alignment pins in designs where precision alignment is essential, his remarks about the pins don't make much sense. Fact of the matter is, as long as the tolerances were maintained when the pins were moved, this would make no difference to the function of the movement or its reliability. Moving which side of the interface the pins are on is not, in and of itself, something that would cause problems or increased failure rate. Looser tolerances could, but loosening tolerances is its own separate change. They could have left the pins where they were and simply loosened tolerances and created the same issues, if these "problems" being referred to are even related to the locating pins at all.

In truth, any "issues" Sellita may have, and Hans didn't actually explain what types of failures Sellita are prone to that ETAs aren't, are more likely related to the "other stuff" he glosses over as being changed than to the decision to flip which side the pins are on. Indeed, the SW200's ratchet wheel problem was with the design of the gear tooth profile being changed to something less robust than what ETA used, completely unrelated to the bridge alignment pins. IIRC, the change to the gear teeth was not to save costs, but related to the fact that ETA's tooth profile is protected (patented or similar protection). The Sellita ratchet wheels may also be built from a different material, or different grade, that is weaker (and if so, that is likely a cost saving decision).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,417 Posts
I've had issues with 2 out of 3 SW-200 driven watches - and the third one hasn't had any issues so far because I have not really worn/used it.

I know it's my own personal experience and serves only as anecdotal evidence, but I now steer clear of Sellita SW-200 watches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
I have several watches with ETA and several with SW-200 movements. I have had no issues with either movements so far. One of the SW-200 movements is one of the most accurate on my wrist of any of my watches, including several Rolex watches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
ETA, Sellita, Soprod are all fantastic movements I have a number of both ETA and Sellita. The only difference i have encountered is the ETA Power Eighty - Bought it as a beater and that damn movement is accurate and 80+ hrs of power. Really impressed by the movement and price. Anyway, here's a great article on movements and a shot of one of my Sellita


15506082
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,220 Posts
This is complete conjecture, so if someone has more information please share it, but I think ETA is currently more innovative and focused on R&D (Powermatic 80 movement, for example) in order to stay ahead on patents, whereas Sellita is strictly a producer and not an innovator.
While ETA is more innovative than Sellita, Sellita hasn't just been sitting back and creating copies of old ETA designs for which the patents have expired (with a few minor tweaks here and there). The SW1000, which is sort of a downsized SW300, has no ETA counterpart.
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top