WATCH TALK FORUMS banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
just had an interesting conversation with the omega AD regarding the new seamasters 8500 v.s the old seamasters 2500 co-axial

" the 8500 is no more in house than the 2500 co-axial" - Omega AD

bold statement?.....im not so sure.....he is correct in many ways.....ETA built the 8500 for omega from scratch around the george daniels escapement.....ETA built the 2892 co-axial for omega as well by basically modifying the existing 2892 movement

we are all aware that swatch owns omega and ETA so no big deal right?......well why are watch enthusiasts referring to the 8500 as a 'manufacture' movement? when it seems to be no more 'manufacture' than the 2500 co-axial?...is it because it was built from scratch?.....so what...it was still built by ETA

i think the AD is right and in no way did he make an attempt to imply otherwise regarding the 8500

my personal feeling is obviously the 8500 is a brand new movement but IT IS eta built......the 8500 is exclusive to omega BUT so is the 2500 co-axial.........

prior to the 8500 many referred to the 2500 co-axial as 'in family' witch is valid......but it is also just as exclusive to omega as the 8500.....the base 2892 is used in many brands BUT not in co-axial version...

thoughts please...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
28,405 Posts
Your AD is correct - technically the 8500 is NOT an in-house movement because Omega does not build it themselves. I'd call it more of a manufacturer movement since Omega designed it, and they did not design the 2892 that the 1109, 1120, and eventually the 2500 was based on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
either way the 8500 I'm sure will be a success for omega although it will always be dogged for not being a true in house......even the press releases by omega don't claim the movement to be in house.....kind of took a life of its own on via the internet.....yet info is readily available that ETA built it.......as for the co-axial? sure ETA built the 2892 BUT Omega introduced the co-axial modification and had the 2892 retrofitted....essentially a new movement in what now has 4 versions...the 2500 a, b, c and now d.....

not slamming the 8500....just not understanding all the hype comparing it to other TRUE in house movements......the 2500d looks to be the final evolution with the brand new 3 level co axial escapement thats being offered in all new ceramic seamster 300s and the pre ceramic planet oceans. the 2500d seems to be just as 'in house'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
I suppose the same goes for the 9300.
I asked the Swarch Group about the 9300, and the answer i got was that this is an Omega in house movement, built from scratch by Omega. Feels a bit like they tricked me...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
"In an admirable show of honesty, Mr. Monachon also cautioned us that although the calibre 8500/8501 are completely designed and developed within OMEGA Granges, it is dangerous to call the movement completely in-house manufactured. Without the help and assistant of Comadur, Nivarox, ETA and Frederick Piguet - all within the Swatch Group, the success of this calibre would not have been possible"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
So what I'm hearing is that a Ferrari is somehow less of a Ferrari because it borrowed Cadillac technology for it's suspension system some time back? I don't think so.

It seems at some point all watch movements, subsequent to the actual inventor, are borrowed technology with a 'modification' no matter how major that might be. No other watch made has the co-axial feature. That makes Omega pretty unique. And don't we all love the look and feel of the Omega?

I suppose the 'in house' moniker is the justification for a higher price? And Omega just raised their prices so we'd like to feel like the extra money is justified. In my view, it's tough to truly justify spending thousands of dollars on a watch anyway. We do it because we can and because it gives us some enjoyment. Beauty and 'value' are in the eye of the beholder.

I own ETA powered Invicta's that are bold, bright and keep time within COSC specs. They cost thousands less than my Omegas. I enjoy wearing them. Is there as much cache in wearing an Invicta vs. the Omega?

Omegas just sing to me. No matter how much I try to love the Breitling, for example, they just don't do it for me the same way Omegas do.:biggrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
So what I'm hearing is that a Ferrari is somehow less of a Ferrari because it borrowed Cadillac technology for it's suspension system some time back? I don't think so.

It seems at some point all watch movements, subsequent to the actual inventor, are borrowed technology with a 'modification' no matter how major that might be. No other watch made has the co-axial feature. That makes Omega pretty unique. And don't we all love the look and feel of the Omega?

I suppose the 'in house' moniker is the justification for a higher price? And Omega just raised their prices so we'd like to feel like the extra money is justified. In my view, it's tough to truly justify spending thousands of dollars on a watch anyway. We do it because we can and because it gives us some enjoyment. Beauty and 'value' are in the eye of the beholder.

I own ETA powered Invicta's that are bold, bright and keep time within COSC specs. They cost thousands less than my Omegas. I enjoy wearing them. Is there as much cache in wearing an Invicta vs. the Omega?

Omegas just sing to me. No matter how much I try to love the Breitling, for example, they just don't do it for me the same way Omegas do.:biggrin:
COSC specs are not hard to obtain short term.....long term yes....please don't ever compare invicta again to the omegas and breitlings of the world......different grade ETA movements non comparable......

i always love it when someone tells me that their invicta has the same movement as my breitling.......foolishness:T

there IS a reason why ETA makes 'chronometer' grade movements.....

anyways.....the thread was basically is the 8500 any more 'in-house' than the 2500?..........:thumbup1:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Omegas 8500 and new seamsters are nice.....but still not in rolexs league......even the Omega AD told me...." if your going to spend this much on the 8500 seamster than just pay the extra and get a submariner"

i kind of have to agree.....:thumbup1:

OR

buy the 2500d equipped planet oceans.....$2000 less msrp than the 8500
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
that watch is bad boy:thumbup1:......i will admit, i am not familiar with rw smith apart from their website.....i appreciate all types of watches albeit i prefer the 'tool' models.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
COSC specs are not hard to obtain short term.....long term yes....please don't ever compare invicta again to the omegas and breitlings of the world......different grade ETA movements non comparable......

i always love it when someone tells me that their invicta has the same movement as my breitling.......foolishness:T

there IS a reason why ETA makes 'chronometer' grade movements.....

anyways.....the thread was basically is the 8500 any more 'in-house' than the 2500?..........:thumbup1:
I wasn't comparing Invicta with Omega or Breitling ~ you obviously misunderstood my comment. :001_rolleyes: I think what I said speaks for itself. Enjoy whatever you buy. It's all personal taste.

Cheers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,658 Posts
Omegas 8500 and new seamsters are nice.....but still not in rolexs league......even the Omega AD told me...." if your going to spend this much on the 8500 seamster than just pay the extra and get a submariner"

i kind of have to agree.....:thumbup1:

OR

buy the 2500d equipped planet oceans.....$2000 less msrp than the 8500
I was in Tourbillon yesterday for about an hour playing around with a new Planet Ocean 8500, a GO PanomaticCounter XL, Blancpain Leman Flyback and Fifty Fathoms ceramic. Let me tell you, initial impressions are that Swatch may have been onto something in wishing to price Omega into another tier. I don't agree with the strategy, but the quality of the product certainly matches the price.

Also, AFAIK the Submariner still pulls a significant pricing premium over the Omega, including the PO, let alone the Seamaster. Seems like the AD may have been pushing for a higher commission.:biggrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Are you suggesting that anything that comes out of the Swatch house isn't a manufacture movement because they are using their own in-house movement maker to make their movements? Would Swatch have to create ANOTHER movement company WITHIN the Omega building to accomplish a "manufacture" designation? If so, what was the point of making ETA exclusive? Would it be more fair to call all new Omega manufacture movements "Swatch" manufacture movements, since ETA and Omega are in-house, together, under Swatch?

It just seems like Omega designed and put together movements like the 8500 and the 9301 and used the movement maker they bought SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of building their movements to build them, and I have trouble seeing what's not in-house about that. Correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I just don't understand how the Groups work.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
28,405 Posts
I think the lines are blurred now that we have brands tied together so there are "in-group" movements. The new Omega movements do not fit the strict definition of in-house as we've always known it. You are correct that we might be splitting antiquated hairs since the watch industry is not the same as it was 15 or 20 years ago so maybe some new parameters are needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
ETA's NOT exclusive to Omega....ETA will still be supplying completed movements to Breitling, IWC and other MAJOR brands(assembled to each manufacturers personal specs).....its the small brands and boutique brands that they will no longer supply.....

The 8500 is about as in house as omegas going to get for now......but the perception is that it is more in house than the current 2500 movement....its not.....at least not when facts are considered:thumbup1:

8500 is built up internet hype........omega never once stated it was 100% in house.........:cool1:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
...The 8500 is about as in house as omegas going to get for now......but the perception is that it is more in house than the current 2500 movement....its not.....at least not when facts are considered...
I hope no one minds me "digging" this thread up but I had the same question in mind (8500 vs. 2500) and I would have thought that "designing" a movement from the ground up and modifying one from an existing movement would be quite different... :001_unsure:

"Horological history was made in 1999 when OMEGA equipped its calibre 2500 with a Co-Axial escapement. But an even more exciting story was the launch of the exclusive OMEGA Co-Axial calibre 8500/8501 in 2007. Each of its 202 pieces was conceived from scratch and built around the revolutionary escapement, marking a dramatic step in the evolution of the company’s Co-Axial philosophy. The movement’s manufacturing processes were optimized for series-production readiness and the OMEGA calibre 8500/8501 delivered timekeeping performance that immediately put the mechanical watch industry on notice. For OMEGA it was a return to its roots: the company had, in fact, been named for a serially-produced movement developed in-house in 1890 and the Co-Axial calibre 8500 demonstrated boldly that OMEGA was back among the ranks of Swiss watch manufactures, companies which have designed and produced their own movements in-house.

The Co-Axial story continues

The drama continued with the launch of the Co-Axial calibre 8520/8521 designed especially for smaller watches and the Co-Axial calibre 8601/8611, a movement with an added instantaneous jump annual calendar complication.

The OMEGA Co-Axial calibre 9300/9301 chronograph
In 2011, OMEGA introduced its first in-house Co-Axial chronograph movement, the Co-Axial calibre 9300/9301. In a compelling departure from the brand's other chronographs, the watches equipped with the calibre 9300 have only two sub-dials instead of the three associated with, for example, the Speedmaster Professional. This is made possible by placing the 12-hour and sixty minute counters on a single sub-dial at 3 o'clock. The clean dial layout and the Co-Axial performance have made the watches equipped with the new movement – the Speedmaster Co-Axial Chronograph and the Seamaster Planet Ocean Chronograph – among the most talked about in OMEGA's collection
"

The above quoted from Omega's site. So what, iyho, makes the 2500 and 8500 the same and the 8500 just hype? What are your facts and could you please offer us a link to them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
So what I'm hearing is that a Ferrari is somehow less of a Ferrari because it borrowed Cadillac technology for it's suspension system some time back? I don't think so.
No, the argument is more along the lines of what I hear in regard to one of my cars, a Jensen Interceptor. They used a big block Chrysler engine. Borrowing technology is one thing, but having that technology built by someone else leads to accusations of bastardization (I'm not coming down on either side of the argument, just offering another way to look at it).

Of course any time I need parts for my 'bastard' car, I am very happy that I don't own an Aston Martin - I've seen a buddy's bilsl for engine parts!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I hope no one minds me "digging" this thread up but I had the same question in mind (8500 vs. 2500) and I would have thought that "designing" a movement from the ground up and modifying one from an existing movement would be quite different... :001_unsure:

"Horological history was made in 1999 when OMEGA equipped its calibre 2500 with a Co-Axial escapement. But an even more exciting story was the launch of the exclusive OMEGA Co-Axial calibre 8500/8501 in 2007. Each of its 202 pieces was conceived from scratch and built around the revolutionary escapement, marking a dramatic step in the evolution of the company’s Co-Axial philosophy. The movement’s manufacturing processes were optimized for series-production readiness and the OMEGA calibre 8500/8501 delivered timekeeping performance that immediately put the mechanical watch industry on notice. For OMEGA it was a return to its roots: the company had, in fact, been named for a serially-produced movement developed in-house in 1890 and the Co-Axial calibre 8500 demonstrated boldly that OMEGA was back among the ranks of Swiss watch manufactures, companies which have designed and produced their own movements in-house.

The Co-Axial story continues

The drama continued with the launch of the Co-Axial calibre 8520/8521 designed especially for smaller watches and the Co-Axial calibre 8601/8611, a movement with an added instantaneous jump annual calendar complication.

The OMEGA Co-Axial calibre 9300/9301 chronograph
In 2011, OMEGA introduced its first in-house Co-Axial chronograph movement, the Co-Axial calibre 9300/9301. In a compelling departure from the brand's other chronographs, the watches equipped with the calibre 9300 have only two sub-dials instead of the three associated with, for example, the Speedmaster Professional. This is made possible by placing the 12-hour and sixty minute counters on a single sub-dial at 3 o'clock. The clean dial layout and the Co-Axial performance have made the watches equipped with the new movement – the Speedmaster Co-Axial Chronograph and the Seamaster Planet Ocean Chronograph – among the most talked about in OMEGA's collection
"

The above quoted from Omega's site. So what, iyho, makes the 2500 and 8500 the same and the 8500 just hype? What are your facts and could you please offer us a link to them?
8500 is a solid movement - just not 100% 'in house' as the implication. ETA built it FOR Omega. ETA and Omega both owned by swatch group. The newer 2500D movements are 3 level co-axials just like the 8500. Simply put a 2500D Omega is by far the best bang for your buck in the market. 8500 based Omega is definitly on my list of a must have. Plenty of threads on this, Omega stated a long time ago that ETA was a major player in the 8500s design.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top