The Cal 8500 is a fine movement, but I really don't think that it is such an obvious hands down winner. As I have said many times before, every movement is a series of compromises and, as such, it is hard to compare one set of compromises with another. The 8500 certainly has the finest escapement that Omega have ever made, but in standard trim it is neither poised nor regulated with the care that could take full advantage of either the escapement, the FSB or the hairspring. However, we can get an idea of how good it could be from its predecessor, the Cal.2500.
The accuracy that the 2500 is capable of is the stuff of myth. As it stands, I know of a couple of 2500 movements that, after careful fettling, can easily meet quartz standards of accuracy. As yet, I haven't heard any tales of 8500 being regulated to this sort of level, but given the balance, spring and escapement, it is only a matter of time. As it stands, the 2500 has a strong case in its own right as it has actually proven that it can be fettled to far greater stability and accuracy than mere COSC. More to the point, the 2500, with the 'cockroach' genes of the 2892 is comparatively easy to fix and fettle and has a thirty year heritage of indestructibility. However, the purist would argue that it isn't really an Omega movement, merely an Omega escapement.
However, returning to 'quartz like accuracy' it is easily forgotten that, in the old 'observatory' accuracy competitions, the Cal.30T2:
could also perform this feat in the forties. In slightly more ordinary trim it was, and is, about as accurate as the current 'standard' 8500 even with an ordinary escapement with a mere Breguet Overcoil. However one difference is that the 30T2 can be easily regulated at home without paying ÂŁ300 for a special tool.
The 30T2 is one movement that has stood the test of time. It may not be automatic, but it is rugged, robust and handsome. It is also cheap and easy to service, even today. It is one of Omega's calibres that has undeniably earned the label 'legendary'. (Not least by being the movement in several of the RAF's finest watches.)
http://www.ninanet.net/watches/others09/Mediums/momega1894.html
Is it a better movement than the 8500? despite lacking the Coaxial Escapement which, as I have argued before, is the best thing to happen to horology in three hundred years, the 30T2 combines elegance, simplicity and accuracy. The Cal.8500 exhibits two of these but, to my mind, does have the feel of several complex solutions looking for a problem that isn't there.
However, I have merely compared the 8500, 2500 and 30T2 as a rhetorical device.
The reason is simple: there is an obvious contender for Omega's overall best movement, and that is the Cal.564 / 565. I choose the 564 in particular for the simple reason that they have a quick set date, a convenience that the earlier 5xx lacked. The fact is, pretty well any five (or seven) series Omega has the right to be described as legendary.
http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&0&2uswk&Omega_562
From a personal point of view I prefer the 751 and the 565 for the simple reason that they are almost identical and yet still rationally affordable. So, why would I say that the 564 is the overall best movement Omega have ever made, and how do I defend myself from the assertion that I am simply being nostalgic?
First, it is simply beautiful:
Second, it is easy to regulate. the Swan Neck regulation system is both lovely to look at, devastatingly effective and simple to use.
Third, it is simple to repair; an elegant, no nonsense design which is precisely as complex as it needs to be and no more. The regulator (above) exemplifies this; remove the swan neck and you are left with a simple 'stick' regulation. All the Swan Neck regulator is is a spring (the swan neck) and a screw. The spring pushes the 'stick' firmly against the screw ensuring that any adjustment that is made to the screw is transmitted directly to the stick. Thus a simple watchmaker's screwdriver is all that is needed to make incredibly fine adjustment. Simple, beautiful and
very precise.
Did I mention that it is beautiful?
Fourth: while, when set up correctly it can be quite astonishingly accurate, the fact is that the 5xx movements flew through COSC in quite astonishing numbers over the years they were produced. even today you can find movements that have seen little in the way of love but are still stunningly accurate even before the service in which you discover just how remarkable their accuracy was in the light of their condition. This is a watch that can transcend abuse (even if it shouldn't).
Fifth, The power reserve. One of the selling points of the 8500. The 8500 uses two barrels to achieve a sixty hour power reserve, which is rather similar to the Favre Leuba 'Twin Power' movement of the sixties. However, the 5xx uses a simple single barrel and achieves a fifty hour reserve by simply being very efficient.
Finally, the 5xx is the movement in most of the great watches of the golden age. From the Pie Pan Connies to the Sm300, this was, and remains, the movement of champions.
So, is it a better movement than the 8500? Well, it is definitely easier and cheaper to service. In standard trim it is as accurate and stable and, like the 8500 it can be fettled to a far higher level of stability and accuracy as it proved repeatedly in observatory chronometer competitions. (to be fair I am sure that an 8500 with similar preparation would beat it, but by how much?)
The 5xx is proven over a lifetime of service, it is very hard to kill. I know which I would rather have fall off my wrist onto a hard floor: the 5xx would be less likely to break and far, far less to fix if it did. Likewise, a skipped service or two would be far cheaper to remedy and, on past evidence, less likely to cause a problem: Omega really took case hardening seriously then. Seriously in a way they don't seem to any more.
The aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. I think they are both lovely, but the 565 is an ungilded lilly. I prefer less make up myself.
As for servicing costs, watchmakers like working on them and parts are still reasonably plentiful and comfortably cheap. In my experience a simple service is about a quarter of the cost of a service on the 8500. Any parts needed will, I suspect, merely add to the difference.
The fact is that, there are a lot of 5xx movements left around. they just resist entropy rather well. Firstly they are tough little buggers and secondly they inspire their owners to keep them going, like an old, but well loved, pet.
There is one final factor. For about the price of an 8500 engined watch you could conceivably buy an immaculate example of a Piepan Connie, a Bulls Eye Dynamic and a Sm300 with enough change left to buy an ex RAF Omega 30T2 (as worn in the Battle of Britain). That is, a series of legendary movements in a series of legendary watches.
Maybe, in fifty years time, you might be able to say all of this about the 8500.
Maybe...
*edit*
And don't forget, I didn't even mention the Cal.1040!
