Would Messers Hayek's time be better spent looking into these problems we've been following rather than jousting with Rolex and trading barbs with reporters? I don't know the answer but I think it's a good question.
My point is, I don't think we can simply say the confusion that exists with regards to the Co-Axial is due to marketing hype and tests made in laboratories. It's one thing to make a production run of 50 or 100 Co-Axial's and send that many employees home with them and tell them not to baby the watches, but if you're under pressure to get the product debugged and out the door in mass quantities at some point you have to bite the bullet and release it out into the wild and see if they survive.
Test made in laboratories aren't real wear and aren't enough significant to be judged as something real. (I probably should include "my personal thoughts" here too...) Perhaps that is true. But the fact is, none of us has a real good idea how long Omega was working with Mr. Daniels on the Co-Axial before they came out with the Co-Axial's... If the lab work was only for a couple of months, yes, I can agree with that, but what if Omega had been working with Daniel's from 1998 through 2001? Three years... What if they'd been working on it since 1996? Five years... At some point you have to either give it a shot or move on.
And here is where I believe the pressure comes in. It's no secret that has been wanting to move upmarket for several years. They want to scrap with Rolex in the worst possible way. In my opinion pressing products into the distribution channel without proper Quality Control, Testing and a support structure ready to handle the added pressure is (sadly) going about this in the worst possible way! As a result we have confusion throughout the firm as to what the actual situation is. With the Co-Axials, with the c.33xx's, with the various quality control issues of dust on dials of new watches, watches coming back from repair with debris inside them, why repair service is (and has been) so bloody poor in the USA (and many other geographic regions) and Customer Relations staff making little sense:
Quoted from John Rochowicz's post over at WUS: Dear John,
I hope you are fine and that the weather of Florida is sunny.
Regarding the Omega Co-Axial escapement watch, It is correct that the escapement causes less friction and thus less wear. Since the friction and wear of the components is practically reduced to zero, it is no longer necessary to lubricate the mechanism. [emphasis mine -- Chuck]
Further to your information, we are not aware that such an information is mentioned in our Omega website. Please have a look at the following section:
http://www.omega.ch/index.php?id=100
As a general rule, an OMEGA watch should be serviced every 4 to 5 years, depending on the conditions in which it is used. The service cycle of mechanical watches equipped with the revolutionary Co-Axial Escapement is 6 to 8 years, depending on the conditions in which it is used."
Hoping to have been helpful to you I remain, wishing you a wonderful day. - Kind regards,
- Maria Mastrodonato
- INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER CARE
- ? OMEGA SA
My response was "Oh my GOODNESS! She didn't say that did she?"
Just because the friction is "practically reduced to zero" doesn't mean it is zero, and aside from the escapement, the rest of the watch is ETA. Meaning it would have to have lubrication.
It's true that many of the early Co-Axial's needed to be returned for repair because of too much lubrication on the escapement. But I'm pretty sure there is at least a minimal amount of lubrication on the escapement even if it's just a light buff with a swab which has a wisp/mist of oil on it or something.
It seems to me that Omega really needs to sit down, get their act together, their stories straight and not be saying one thing in one communique and the opposite somewhere else.
But that is all just my opinion.
The thing is, I'm just one guy, sitting at a computer near the geographic center of the North American Continent about 4,000 miles away from Switzerland, Bienne, Swatch Group and Omega. For all I know I'm really off base. I mean I see a lot of stuff on the boards. I get a lot more information in my travels on the web, and in my email box, but I'm no where near the real action.
And frankly, despite the fact France and Switzerland share a common border, I'm not sure if you have any more of an "In" at Swatch or Omega than any of the rest of us.
Omega perhaps badly concepted the movement, Perhaps, but I really don't think we can conclude that with the Co-Axial... For the movement is based on an ETA 2892-A2 movement and that is a known solid dependable movement.
And please, Georges... We really don't need another disertation as to how much you distain the ,,cookie-cutter, mass-produced boring movements that aren't in-house,, ... We understand how much you dislike ETA's. However, ETA are a fact of life, they aren't going to disappear anytime soon and denouncing them the vast majority of times you post, regardless of it ETA's are germaine to the topic at hand get's tiresome and depressing rather quickly.
No Mas! can we give that a bit of a break?
something which never happened when it was a 100% manufacture. First off, Omega was never a 100% manufacturer. At least not since the 1930's or 1940's... Omega has never (with the possible exception of the LCD Quartz models of the late 1970's and 1980's and prior to the 1940's) made any of it's chronographs as a 100% manufacture. Secondly, it's not an apples and oranges comparision to compare evolutionary Omega Calibres of the 40's, 50's, '60's and '70's with a revolutionary escapement like the Co-Axial, at least from what I've been lead to believe about the Daniel's Co-Axial escapement). What your saying is akin to saying:
The Japanese Automotive industry never had the problems with it's piston engines like Mazda is having with the Wankel Rotary Engine.
It's at best an Apple and Orange comparision.
Additionally, we all can complain as much as we want, the days of Omega doing all of their own movements like they did before the twin Japanese and Quartz onslaught is likely over and buried, precisely because the market conditions won't support Omega being their own manufacturer and them remaining profitable. I know it's sad, disappointing and a shame, but we aren't likely to see $4,000 427ci dual-quad carb muscle cars being sold at the local Ford, Chevy and Dodge dealers because our gas prices are closer to $3.25 a gallon in the US, vs. $0.25 a gallon and the EPA, DOT and Insurance companies won't stand for it. Again, we get you don't like the movement Omega uses in the vast majority of their products, but there are no economically viable alternatives so where does constant complaining about it get us? Nowhere and it casts a pall over the forum.
Lastly, we didn't have the internet and instant communications back in the day. It took calling up the operator and having her connect you to an Overseas operator to simply phone someone. We didn't have Instant messaging, emal, on-line discussion forums back in the 50's, 60's, and '80's, we had magazines, the postal service and word of mouth at the local jewelers. So we really don't have a good handle on what problems the 100% manufacture movements had back in the day, other than the memories of those who've been around that long.
An aside, John Diethelm retired a couple years back after 40 years of service to Omega, and he started in 1962. A lot of vintage movements were already in the field before John was employed as a young man. Lord knows we didn't have the record keeping facilities at our disposal back then that we do now.
Subcontracting movements is not the same thing than manufacturing them. No it isn't. Ford used to make the entire widget, now they subcontract a lot of subassemblies out, same thing at GM, Damler-Chrysler, etc. The quality of today's cars is probably better than it was when firms made the entire widget.
100% manufacture is not necessarily a pancea to every situation...
Manufactures make far better movements than subcontactors two exceptions however with Piguet and Lemania. SCOFF! F. Piguet? If you want to set it gently in a winder and watch it, yeah, it's an ok movement, just don't try wearing one as a sports chronograph in the real world.
Lemania makes some great movements, and I know you didn't forget to include Valjoux because of your dislike of Valjoux. But Valjoux made excellent chronograph movements and I have seen no fall off in the quality, reliability or durability of the 7750 since Valjoux was bought by Swatch Group and folded into ETA.
Some people at Omega belived the 33xx to be flawless when it was and is full of problems. Marketing hype again. It's my believe that many of these problems as well as the Quality Control, Communications and Customer Support issues might possibly be more mangagerial in nature and also due to the pressure being applied to move Omega into a confrontation with Rolex.
Paying over $2000 for a watch that will have to be serviced in less than years in my opinion isn't the greatest investment, Georges... If one was to invest $2,000 in a Speedmaster Mark IV or Speedmaster 125 in minty condition and it will have to be serviced in less than years too! And those are movement's you like!
I would rather go and buy a watch with a movement that has been proven as reliable and that don't need too much tlc. Which still would have to be serviced every 3-5 years if you maintain your watches as per recommendations.
Omega is a marketing brand now and nothing of what it was before. Ok, Georges, We get it. You strongly distain what Omega is and wish it was what did things they way they used to. Frankly I'm less than thrilled with many aspects of the way Omega is conducting itself these days, but I understand and acknoledge that Omega could not survive in today's market environment using 50 year old movements, production facilities and business strategy.
You see, I know what Heuer was in the 50's, 60's, 70's and early '80's... And I've always said, that I'd rather have a live and profitable TAG-Heuer than a dead and largely forgotten Heuer. I also know that I wish that there was a modern Gallet watch company like either Omega, or TAG-Heuer or Breitling... So I wouldn't have to educate people how there was this little firm in Switzerland called Gallet who was in the watch business longer (by 100 years or so) than Rolex, and Heuer and Omega that may have made the world's first wrist Chronograph for the British Army, used to make watches like this:  But due to the "Quartz crisis" were forced to cease operations until the firms assets were sold to a Luxury Goods firm in 1996. The new firm was renamed "Gallet Group, Inc." but it does not appear to be offering watches currently.
That could well have been Omega's fate if they had kept to the business plan that Omega nearly rode to it's demise in the early 1980's. In the 20 years between 1970 and 1990 the Swiss watch industry went from 2,000 firms producing watches to about 500. So many firms went away, Heuer was owned by Lemania for a while and it took a Saudi to bail them out. Breitling ceased operations for at least a year. Zenith was bought by the American Zenith Electronics company and the tooling for the El-Primero was ordered to be destroyed by the new management, and it was a few long time employees who smuggled the tooling to a safe location that allowed the El-Primero to survive. They, and Omega, were the lucky ones. It wouldn't have taken to much of a nudge for all of them to have disappear, like Gallet and so many others.
If you'd rather long for the days when Omega made their own non-chronograph movements, fine.
If you wish to believe that Omega could survive in today's marketplace producting watches the way they did when they were a 100% manufacture, that's fine too.
Omega had to move from the c.321 to the c.861 because Lemania couldn't make the c.321 quickly and inexpensively enough for Omega continue to use them in the Speedmaster and Seamasters. I really don't understand why you seem to believe the the non-chronograph movements wouldn't be similarly affected by market demands. But hey, you can feel about that as you please too@
I just don't think the rest of us need to hear how Omega used to be great & now sucks, and that ETA's and Valjoux's are crap quite so often. Often when the topic(s) being discussed are not really related to your thoughts. I'm not saying you can't say those things, I'm not saying you aren't entitled to express your opinion, but it get's old and tiresome quickly. I'm not saying this as one of the principals of Chronocentric/OTD, but rather as a fellow contributor to the Omega community who sometimes agrees with you and feels that you frequently bring interesting discussion to the fore. But going on about in-house and ETA so much and so often is a turn-off to many people. Just so you know. It simply detracts.
I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
I DO hope that Omega overcomes their current problems. I really do.
I would really really much rather be typing happier thoughts about how good Omega's products are, how good their customer support is, and how much improved their watch servicing in the USA has become the past few years than what's happened the past five years (since 2001). But I really don't think that Omega's dropping production of their own movements 20 plus years ago are the cause of their current woes, but rather a myriad of other factors (of which I only described the tip of the iceberg) and pressures that need to be dealt with better than they have been done the past five years.
Sincerely,
-- Chuck |
