zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

: Do you honestely think that eta is playing in
: the same ground as lemania or piguet in
: terms of quality of movements?I don't think
: so
: I proved to people that the 4130 was better
: than the 33xx and the el primero combined
: but you didn't red my replies well it seems.
: Here I enclosed the link I posted in a reply to
: you on WUS but which perhaps you never
: really paid to. I explained in older threads
: why the 4130 is the best in terms of
: chronographs not only to you but to a
: certain person called mjb who also believed
: that the 33xx never knew problems.
: That 4130 movement didn't know three versions
: unlike the coaxial and it was perfect out of
: the box. Already the 4130 is a reference,
: you also forget to precise than the 2500 is
: a way thinner movement than the 3135 and
: that the 4130 is the largest chrono movement
: that was built to this day. I give Rolex the
: benefit of the doubt for that reason, the
: fact that they stopped the small problems
: which appeared on the 4130 from a definitive
: manner. Rolex didn't manage things like
: Omega did when they had a movement problem.
: Yet there is debate about these so called 10
: years of servical intervals because in the
: Omega user manual, they suggest to service
: the watch every 5 years. The fact is also
: that Omega doesn't modify themselves is also
: something that makes me sad.
: We will never agree on this subject but it is
: expected.

As I said, there are things I agree with you about and others I don't. That's normal, since everyone has their own opinion.

Let's back up for a second to the question I was really asking. I did read your replies on the forums, but they didn't answer the specific question I was asking. Maybe I didn't ask it clearly enough.

We can both agree that the Rolex 4130 and the Omega co-axial 2500 calibers have been in mass production for about the same length of time (6 years approximately). Now, forget about who makes these movements and just consider your own criteria for judging a movement as fully reliable (any movement, regardless of who makes it).

Both movements have been on the market for the same amount of time, and neither has reached the 15 year mark yet (the point at which you say a watch movement can be considered reliable). So, if neither of these movements has hit the 15 year mark, how can one be the "best chronograph movement on the market" while the other is "new and unproven". It is a FACT that we have two movements that have been on the market for about the same time. It is a FACT that neither has hit the 15 year mark yet. So, again, forgetting about who makes these movements, how can one be considered to be "the best" while another is "unproven"?

By your own judgment criteria you aren't considering the two movements equally. If you said that the Rolex 4130 looks good but needs to be on the market another 9 years to be judged as reliable, then you'd be making a fair statement based on your own criteria. After all, this is basically what you are saying about the Omega 2500 - that it is too new and unproven and that it needs to be on the market longer before it is judged as fully reliable.

I hope this question makes sense. It is all about your judgment criteria, not whether Rolex is better than Omega.