The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998.
Informational Websites ChronoMaddox -- the legacy of Chuck Maddox OnTheDash -- vintage Heuer website Zowie -- Omega information
Discussion Forums ChronoMaddox Forum Heuer Forum Omega Forum
Counterfeit Watchers ChronoTools Forum ChronoTrader Forum

zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Opened July 1999, zOwie is the Internet's first and longest running discussion forum dedicated to Omega brand watches.

Feel free to discuss pricing and specific dealers. But 'for sale' postings, commercial solicitation and ads are not allowed. Full archive of all messages is accessible through options in the Search and Preferences features. Privacy, policies and administrivia are covered in the Terms of Use.

For the answer to the NUMBER #1 most frequently asked question here--for details or value of a specific older Omega watch you have--go to: Tell Me About My Omega. Learn more about How To Include Photos and HTML In Your Postings. To contact someone with a question not relevant to other readers of the forum, please click on their email address and contact them privately.

Re: Which part?
In Response To: Re: Which part? ()

: I think generaly In-house means exclusiveness,
: conceptually, but in Omegas case they used
: to manufacture their movements and they were
: in fact more robust that the current ETA
: movements. therefore one can conclude that
: if OMEGA began to make their own movements
: once again, they would be more robust that
: the current ETA based calibers.

: Omari

I mostly agree with you. Just this in-house thing, IMHO "in-house" means a lot to the collectors, but doesn't mean too much for a casual watch hobbiest.
A better watch is better not because it's "in-house", rather simply because it's better in many aspects.

I don't have first hand experience of Omegas famous 5xx serial calibres. I heard that they are very good, and they are many collectors darlings. Since it's been 40 years, I am not sure how they compare with today's ETAs, especially ETA 2892-A2. I've owned dozens of ETAs through the years. Most of them can achieve chronometer performance easily and seem trouble free. They generally start losing time at 5~6 year mark, but that's because they need to be serviced (COA). I am not saying ETA is superior, they are just not that bad.

Current Position
Chronocentric and zOwie site design and contents (c) Copyright 1998-2005, Derek Ziglar; Copyright 2005-2008, Jeffrey M. Stein. All rights reserved. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the terms of use. CONTACT | TERMS OF USE | TRANSLATE