Novelty.

 

This is the correct answer.

There is no advantages ever empirically tested for the coaxial escapement. It is not better than Rolex, and I don't think it is anywhere near as good. It is certainly more likely to have a reliability issue when you just look at the number of moving parts. Daniels designed and worked on pocket watches and clocks. In all of his work, he has never mentioned beat rates. The reason is likely that he was doing all his work at low beat rates. When you speed things up, problems arise and things don't work as they should. To date, there is no testing to prove that coax is lower friction overall. It also has twice as many moving parts, which goes to reliability. Do the sum of all the extra moving parts create more friction? Who knows, because there is no test. Here is coax vs std lever escapement. They only way to prove that it has lower friction with all the extra moving parts and pivots.

 

I’ll give you a simple answer!

Omega currently make the best mass produced movements IMO. Better than Rolex. The benefits of the escapement are questionable, as with many technologies used by other brands in their movements.

They make better watches than Tudor, but they are also more expensive. What you have heard about poor QC with Tudor is unfortunately true. It’s not good enough.

I have always been a huge fan of Sinn, however they generally don’t have the same brand presence or prestige as a luxury brand. This is why Sinn owners love them though.

 

Bluco--can you elaborate on "best?" The Rolex movement is more accurate (+/-2) and has longer power reserve. Plus higher frequency, which I thought was desirable. What makes the Omega "better?" Longevity? If so, how can we measure that given how young the co-axial is?
Thanks! This is very helpful

 

Taken from more than one source:

The Co-Axial escapement functions with a system of three pallets that separate the locking function from the impulse, with the pushing, as opposed to the sliding friction of the lever escapement, resulting in greater mechanical efficiency. The critical virtue of this escapement is the virtual elimination of all sliding friction, theoretically resulting in greater accuracy over time and longer service intervals. The direct impulse to the roller of the balance by the teeth of the escapement wheel means greater mechanical efficiency, hence more stable precision.

The lever escapement works great. The only problem is the scraping of the escape wheel tooth on the pallet. The scraping creates friction, and to keep the friction down (both to prevent wear, and to prevent energy loss) you need oil. And oil breaks down over time – and therefore, so does precision. The co-axial escapement does it all – it locks securely; you have impulse in both directions; it's self-starting; and there is no sliding friction, so you (theoretically) don't need any oil on the impulse surfaces. The only disadvantage, if you can call it that, is that it's a complicated escapement and that, in its original incarnation, it had an escape wheel necessarily more massive than that used by either the detent or lever escapements.

The co-axial functions with a system of three pallets that separate the locking function from the impulse. And, instead of sliding friction, it uses radial friction at the impulse surfaces. Because this significantly reduces the sliding friction of the pallet stones over the teeth of the escape wheel, it eliminates the need to lubricate the pallets. The result is greater accuracy over time as well as a reduced need to have the watch serviced as frequently.

The lever escapement is over 250 years old, and still works great today. The co-axial was invented by George Daniels to overcome some of the lever escapement's shortcomings, and as a response to the quartz revolution in the industry. Omega purchased it and has continued to refine it ever since. Omega isn't likely to go anywhere, and I doubt they'll leave co-axials behind any time soon.

I own a Tudor Black bay with one of the in-house movements, and it's great. I also have an Omega with a co-axial movement. It's also great. Is it worth buying an Omega over a Tudor solely because Omegas have movements with co-axial escapements? No, of course not. Should you avoid an Omega because of service concerns with a co-axial escapement? No, of course not. Buy what you like, and if you get an Omega enjoy the technical innovation that comes with it. I do.

 

Taken from more than one source:

The Co-Axial escapement functions with a system of three pallets that separate the locking function from the impulse, with the pushing, as opposed to the sliding friction of the lever escapement, resulting in greater mechanical efficiency. The critical virtue of this escapement is the virtual elimination of all sliding friction, theoretically resulting in greater accuracy over time and longer service intervals. The direct impulse to the roller of the balance by the teeth of the escapement wheel means greater mechanical efficiency, hence more stable precision.

The lever escapement works great. The only problem is the scraping of the escape wheel tooth on the pallet. The scraping creates friction, and to keep the friction down (both to prevent wear, and to prevent energy loss) you need oil. And oil breaks down over time – and therefore, so does precision. The co-axial escapement does it all – it locks securely; you have impulse in both directions; it's self-starting; and there is no sliding friction, so you (theoretically) don't need any oil on the impulse surfaces. The only disadvantage, if you can call it that, is that it's a complicated escapement and that, in its original incarnation, it had an escape wheel necessarily more massive than that used by either the detent or lever escapements.

The co-axial functions with a system of three pallets that separate the locking function from the impulse. And, instead of sliding friction, it uses radial friction at the impulse surfaces. Because this significantly reduces the sliding friction of the pallet stones over the teeth of the escape wheel, it eliminates the need to lubricate the pallets. The result is greater accuracy over time as well as a reduced need to have the watch serviced as frequently.

The lever escapement is over 250 years old, and still works great today. The co-axial was invented by George Daniels to overcome some of the lever escapement's shortcomings, and as a response to the quartz revolution in the industry. Omega purchased it and has continued to refine it ever since. Omega isn't likely to go anywhere, and I doubt they'll leave co-axials behind any time soon.

I own a Tudor Black bay with one of the in-house movements, and it's great. I also have an Omega with a co-axial movement. It's also great. Is it worth buying an Omega over a Tudor solely because Omegas have movements with co-axial escapements? No, of course not. Should you avoid an Omega because of service concerns with a co-axial escapement? No, of course not. Buy what you like, and if you get an Omega enjoy the technical innovation that comes with it. I do.

Is this accurate? I thought Omega's co-axial escapement does use lubrication.

 

What’s the best? Whatever you think is best for you…..

 

I like dark beer

 

This is all very helpful. Yes I do understand that "better" is subjective. And of course I plan to purchase watches based on taste. I really like Sinn for this reason, though wish more movements were in-house.
That said, for me, a super precise movement is interesting! What a feat of engineering! Same with high frequency. So my wonder is, if Tudor produces a movement that is META certified, has higher frequency, and a longer power reserve, what is the co-axial benefit. What I'm reading online is that, in theory, the accuracy of the Omega should last longer. Ie the Omega will be less likely to lose accuracy over time. Do we think this is established or just a guess?

I do really like the seamasters. But they keep raising the prices!

 

Tudor produces a movement that is META certified

As far as I'm aware, there's only one watch in the Tudor catalogue that is METAS certified.

 

It’s unique to the brand. It is of course a well built and functioning movement as well, but this would be possible without the co-axial component. I bought an SMP300 last year and the co-ax wasn’t really part of the equation when buying the watch. I do appreciate that it’s made by the manufacturer of the watch, that it is practically impervious to magnetic fields one may come across in daily life, that it is incredibly accurate and that it’s from a long-standing company that’s likely to be around long after I’m gone. But the co-axial is not a selling point IMHO.

 

Worth mentioning that GS came up with their own replacement for the traditional Swiss lever escapement. 9SA5 also runs faster than anything in the Omega, Tudor, or Rolex stable at 5Hz, and (IMO) 9SA5 is prettier than any of the Omega Co-axial movements, for whatever that's worth.

Caliber 9SA5 | Grand Seiko

Grand Seiko official site. Made by hand for those who value perfection. Grand Seiko raises the pure essentials of watchmaking to the level of art.

www.grand-seiko.com

 

Worth mentioning that GS came up with their own replacement for the traditional Swiss lever escapement. 9SA5 also runs faster than anything in the Omega, Tudor, or Rolex stable at 5Hz, and (IMO) 9SA5 is prettier than any of the Omega Co-axial movements, for whatever that's worth.

Caliber 9SA5 | Grand Seiko

Grand Seiko official site. Made by hand for those who value perfection. Grand Seiko raises the pure essentials of watchmaking to the level of art.

www.grand-seiko.com

Grand Seiko's dual impulse escapement is kind of a weird hybrid of lever and co-axial, with the disadvantages of both. It is high beat, though, which is nice.

 

Novelty, but so much better than Rolex. 0 to +2 or +5, I don't care, and at least someone other than the manufacturer is certifying that. Higher frequency? Lower is more suited to the Omega movement but why is it better? Mine is less than <+5 spd everyday, all day, no matter what I'm doing with it.

 

How is it so much better though? Accuracy spec on Rolex tighter, service interval on Rolex is longer. I’m not seeing how it’s better except maybe magnetic resistance of Omega Movements (which has nothing to do with the escapement)

 

Benefits? Supposedly less friction which might equate to longer service intervals.

And Omega didn't even come up with it, the great watchmaker George Daniels did, way back in the 70's.

And no one knew what to do with it so was it really that good? I don't think Omega used it in a commercially available watch until 1999, some 25 years after Daniels patented it.

I could be a bit off on the details but it's something like that.

 

I guess everyone is looking for market differentiators. Some of them turn out to be big functional change, other's are more fun for the marketing folks and don't really make much difference.

I mean, the Taylormade and Callaway marketing folks have been adding 20 yards to my drives every year since the early 2000's with all kinds of "new" tech!

 

...what, with regard to accuracy, frequency, and reserve, do I gain with the co-axial? Or is the only benefit longevity?

'
Purported benefits have been covered in other replies.

...will I be able to repair a modern co-axial movement in 30, 40, 75 years?

Do you really care? 75 years?!? I'm 57-years-old. Had I kept the first "good" watch I ever bought back in the '90s (a Rolex) it would be about 25-years-old today, but as it is, it's been gone about ten years, and I'm neither a collector nor a "flipper."

Still other replies are subjective. Here is my own subjective & anecdotal take:

I've owned two co-axials -- both Aqua Terras. The first was fairly inaccurate. It gained over 10 seconds a day (which would have been decent if it were a Seiko 9SA5.) The second kept rather better time, but after a couple of years it began to stop for no reason I could see.

My current Omega is a previous-generation Railmaster, with the 2503 movement, which is a reworked ETA 2892 with humble Swiss lever movement. It's probably about 15 years old, and gains about a second-and-a-half per day. I have no desire for another co-axial.

Like I said, my take is anecdotal. You could have better luck than I did with a co-axial, but I would suggest to you that the new escapement is not a panacea. The differences are pretty academic. There are better watches than Omega makes, and none of them bother with a co-axial escapement. I predict that none ever will.

 

My current Omega is a previous-generation Railmaster, with the 2503 movement, which is a reworked ETA 2892 with humble Swiss lever movement. It's probably about 15 years old, and gains about a second-and-a-half per day. I have no desire for another co-axial.

This is an early coaxial movement. A modified 2892 like you stated but coaxial was the primary modification. And mine is a 2504 movement. Not sure if yours is different or what. Great watch nonetheless

 

It is a myth that a Co-axial movement improves the accuracy of a watch in contrast to a traditional anchor escapement, the main advantage of the Co-axial is less friction which equals longer service intervals but even this is subjective with the added curve ball that you need to deal with a watchmaker that is well versed with it, which narrows down your service options.

If you are looking at accuracy go with a Seiko Spring Drive and if you are looking for heirloom goals save up for a Rolex or a Patek the next generation will love you for it.

 

While it is not necessarily due to the co-axial escapement from what I've read, the Omega movements perform a bit better than the Tudor ones.

1. They may have a lower beat rate, which used to be associated with lower accuracy, but nevertheless they are more accurate.
2. Their power reserve may be lower but the 8900 and its variants have two barrels and provide better accuracy when you're at the end of your power reserve.
3. They are also not susceptible to magnetism.

In the end it doesn't really matter and I think you should buy the watch you like most regardless of its specs on paper. My favorite watches aren't necessarily my most accurate ones. (Although I have a new found love in the accuracy and reliability of quartz 😁)

 

In the mid tier Watches, all the brands have have good models and movements. All need care to stay that way with use. Buy what you like, you really can’t go wrong with any of the popular name brand companies. Enjoy what you wear. Vance.

 

I'm not sure where you heard Tudor's QC is less robust than Omega, but I'm not buying it until or unless I get some solid facts on this from a reputable source.

That being said, I have not noticed any fit/finishing differences between Tudors and Omegas, and I generally prefer Tudors for a variety of reasons.

As for co-axial, I positively avoid that movement for reasons stated in this thread.

 

Great answers so far as I’ve read. I think OP is leaning towards omega but wants reinforcement citing technical features. I think in that case choice but be made based on personal preferences. OP: try the ones you’ve have searched, and pick the one you like the best. In everyday use, you’ll hardly notice big differences en performance between the options you cite. And I adhere to the concept that if precision is at the top of the list, go Grand Seiko. Be named Rolex, omega, grand seiko, Tudor, all of them will require servicing someday, and probably you will change or upgrade your car more often than servicing your watch

 

My answer to this Thread is Citizen 0100!

 

The benefits of Omega co-axial and Tudor's less than perfect QC has been covered by previous comments but I would also like to add that if you like to keep your watch for as long as possible, get an Omega.

I have recently found out that most "more affordable" brands such as Tudor/entry level Swatch swap out their movements entirely during service so you will be wearing someone else's "refurbished movement" after a service whereas Omega (and Rolex) will give you your original movement back after a service since it is serialized. Omega also returns you the worn out parts so you can keep it if you are weird like me.

Of course you could say, why not service your Tudor/entry level Swatch at an independent watchmaker. It is quite impossible these days since Tudor is mostly inhouse and the Powermatic 80 movements are also very hard to service. The Powermatic 80 movements are based on ETA movements but they have changed the balance wheel so you would require specific Swatch tools to regulate it.

 

Edit: ^^^ or a screwdriver.


In my experience, the co-axial escapement does nothing except stimulate that nerdish need to grok something different. The real reason for Omega's superior performance is in their free-sprung balance and hairspring design and materials. Rolex isn't any less (or more) accurate (for the same reasons). If you claim Rolex's suggested service interval, it's only because they expect to replace some worn out parts at the end of ten years. Even if you send in an Omega after six years, you still get a bag of replaced parts.

I have three Omega co-axes; for the first, it was (almost) the only reason I bought it, the second one was a bit of the reason and the third it was exactly none:

Well, maybe just a wee bit.

 

Afaik, both companies have a great track record of being able to service watches long after models are first introduced. Omega likes to push the envelope as far as technical achievements go, but I would only consider that as the cherry on top if you had an interest in buying a particular Omega watch anyway. Both companies are overall solid, so imo go with whichever watch you genuinely have an interest in purchasing.

 

Omega's Co-Axial escapement is much like Ducati's Desmodromic valvetrain, to put it in layman's terms

Kidding, of course. I do think you would enjoy an Omega. I love my Aqua Terra because it's robust, accurate and stable, and its looks are classic.

When I consider alternatives to Omega watches I think more about JLC instead of Tudor. I think a Master Control makes a great alternative to an Omega...

 

When I consider alternatives to Omega watches I think more about JLC instead of Tudor. I think a Master Control makes a great alternative to an Omega...

But are JLC movements as accurate and reliable as Omega's?

 

If you're looking for accuracy, why not try Seiko Spring Drive?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]

 

If you're looking for accuracy, why not try Seiko Spring Drive?

If you are looking for quartz watches, why spend so much for the Spring Drive?

 

I’ve owned about 20-25 mechanical watches over the past 15 years. I can’t recall one that lost or gained enough time that it was noticeably worse than any of the others. Can’t recall one that seemed way more accurate than the others. They have all been really good. Maybe I’ve been lucky. Some do look cooler than others. I currently have an omega with a coaxial escapement and a Tudor with their first in house movement. Both seem great. I like the omega coaxial’s looks a bit better than the Tudor movement but neither is winning a beauty prize… these aren’t a Lange. You won’t go wrong with Omega, Tudor, Sinn or Rolex from the movement perspective. Just get watch you like the best.

My 2 cents…

 

Please forgive the beginner question. I'm on the hunt for my first real watch (I have one mechanical Dan Henry and some quartz to date). Looking at the Omega Seamaster 300, Speedy, and a few Tudors. Also heading to Germany soon and like the Sinns.

My issue is with the movement--that wonderful ghost in the machine that makes these things interesting. I'm most enamored with the highly accurate in house movements. Rolex, although out of my reach in so many ways, is the model here. I've watched numerous videos on Omega's co-axial innovations, but I still don't understand the benefit when it comes to accuracy and power reserve. On paper, the Tudors look so much better--higher frequency, longer power reserve, and Tudor claims 40% better than COSC for all movements, and even has one METAS movement. So what, with regard to accuracy, frequency, and reserve, do I gain with the co-axial? Or is the only benefit longevity? I worry that, as an heirloom, longevity is great, but will I be able to repair a modern co-axial movement in 30, 40, 75 years?

I hear Tudor quality control is less robust than Omega. That's certainly an issue if so. But can someone weigh in on the co-axial benefits over the Tudor?

Isn't longevity also simply down to repairability? Seen that way a well regulated off the shelf movement may actually be the 'best'.

 

Others have well described what a co-ax movement does.

high frequency (tudor): watch beats faster -> smoother second hand sweep -> likely going to require service more frequently.
more moving parts (omega): likely to fail more prematurely, though omega does make quite robust and accurate movement (from exp)
novelty, in house movement (tudor and omega), esp. brand-specific niche compoents (omega coaxial): harder to source parts -> harder to source competent service center -> service cost increase.
less-friction mechanism (omega): likely to last longer. However, see my section on more moving parts and novelty.

yes, metas > cosc, when it comes to accuracy, antimagnetism, etc. However, like many engineering marvels, you have to also look at the caveats and determine if the "price to pay" justifies the performance gain. In my cases, this is where I struggle with omega, compared to tudor. if I was to buy an omega over a tudor, it will be a totally emotional purchase (i.e. love the speedmaster > bb chrono)

Likewise, I can also see some "validity" in using a tried-and-true jlc or eta ebauche movements...

 

yes, metas > cosc, when it comes to accuracy, antimagnetism, etc. However, like many engineering marvels, you have to also look at the caveats and determine if the "price to pay" justifies the performance gain. In my cases, this is where I struggle with omega, compared to tudor. if I was to buy an omega over a tudor, it will be a totally emotional purchase (i.e. love the speedmaster > bb chrono)

Likewise, I can also see some "validity" in using a tried-and-true jlc or eta ebauche movements...

Aside from the better movements, to me it seems Omega has batter build quality, they use better materials and have better quality control.

To me Tudor is a Hamilton with better movements but far less variety to chose from. I think for most people the appeal is the Rolex connection, they think they are buying exclusivity for lower prices.

 

I hear Tudor quality control is less robust than Omega. That's certainly an issue if so. But can someone weigh in on the co-axial benefits over the Tudor?

The benefit? It gives you a warm feeling around the heart to know that your mechanical watch movement has something different about it. That's all.