TitoSosa Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 So... I like the brand... I think Omega sells beautiful watches... but the main reason I dont want to buy many of them its because of the ETA movements... I know they are wonderful pieces of engineering, but they are not inhouse movements like the ones we lust about in top brands like Patek, not even the kind Rolex make... so... I have been reading about the 8500 movement... how its used in the DeVille colection and been used in some Aqua Terra models, they even say its going to be the workhorse in some other omega models (Maybe a Planet Ocean?) so... im wondering... its really the 8500 an inhouse movement? does this make Omega a "manufacture"? its really this movement something apart from their ETA cousins? This just keep wondering in my noob head... so... lets hear from the members so I can learn a bit more The specs: Omega 8500 PR: 60 Hrs Jewels: 39 Coaxial, Silicon Based Spring, 2 Barrels mounted in series The subject: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnDorian Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) Pretty much all movements for watches under $8000 are all mass produced by precision robots in a highly automated way. Personally, I prefer gen Omegas and gen IWCs because they take highly proven movements and upgrade them even further to make them even better. A top grade ETA 2892-A2 can hang with a Rolex 3135 in terms of durability, accuracy, and stability. Now take that top grade and finish it even better (it's already finished better than a Rolex before upgrades) and add a few more jewels to some areas and you have something even more amazing. I personally don't get the reasoning why you wouldn't want a better than top grade ETA movement over something that's "in house" which is really a sort of superfluous term since quite a few "in house" were designed elsewhere and purchased or even made elsewhere. The 8500 is made 100% by ETA and was designed by teams from all of Swatch's top brands. When Omega's new facility opens, it'll be produced exclusively there by Omega and only for Omega. It's an incredible movement. Edited August 11, 2009 by JohnDorian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 The Co-Axial escapement is an Omega thing. Sure, it was invented by an Englishman, but when you see a Co-Axial Omega 2500, you know that while it may have started life as an ETA 2892, it's not available in any non-Omega watches. The 8500 is just a further step away from standard movements for Omega. It also, like the 3135, has a two point bridge, instead of the single-point used in ETA movements. Bold move, gorgeous movement. I want. ps. I suppose it has two barrels so it can run at 28,800 without running out of steam, unlike the 2500 which is slowed to 25,200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitoSosa Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Thanx for both replies... Mr. Scrubs: Yes I think alike about 2892 and 3135, but isnt a reasoning what makes me dont want to pay so much money for an ETA that its just not that much diferent for me when its mountend in a coaxial omega... its more about wanting a more "elegant" and more "exclusive" movement that Ill be prouder to own and happier to resell when it comes the time... Pug: I think the same about the 8500... I find it very appealing to the eye... the who point bridge makes my noob mouth drool... but... i have been doing my research and 8500 is slowed to 25,200... so... that makes me thing something wrong it there... and makes me think about one of the things i love the most about mechanical watches... the smoooooth swepping seconds hand... i just the swepping in a Rolex... So... i hope more members stop by this post and take a shot to speak up their opinion... thanx both! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Pug: I think the same about the 8500... I find it very appealing to the eye... the who point bridge makes my noob mouth drool... but... i have been doing my research and 8500 is slowed to 25,200... so... that makes me thing something wrong it there... and makes me think about one of the things i love the most about mechanical watches... the smoooooth swepping seconds hand... i just the swepping in a Rolex... You have to look very carefully to see the stepping in a 25,200 movement. I suspect the Co-Axial doesn't run as well at 28,800, which is why they're slowing it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolfire Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Thanx for both replies... Mr. Scrubs: Yes I think alike about 2892 and 3135, but isnt a reasoning what makes me dont want to pay so much money for an ETA that its just not that much diferent for me when its mountend in a coaxial omega... its more about wanting a more "elegant" and more "exclusive" movement that Ill be prouder to own and happier to resell when it comes the time... Pug: I think the same about the 8500... I find it very appealing to the eye... the who point bridge makes my noob mouth drool... but... i have been doing my research and 8500 is slowed to 25,200... so... that makes me thing something wrong it there... and makes me think about one of the things i love the most about mechanical watches... the smoooooth swepping seconds hand... i just the swepping in a Rolex... So... i hope more members stop by this post and take a shot to speak up their opinion... thanx both! Not too sure about the 8500, but the 2500 in my SMP Co-Axial sweeps smooth. You have to look very carefully to see the stepping in a 25,200 movement. I suspect the Co-Axial doesn't run as well at 28,800, which is why they're slowing it down. I remember it had got something to do with the power reserve, pug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 I remember it had got something to do with the power reserve, pug. Yes, that's what they say. However, if the 8500 has two barrels, you've got to think they may be telling porkies a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolfire Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Yes, that's what they say. However, if the 8500 has two barrels, you've got to think they may be telling porkies a little. Well, maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitoSosa Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Right... so... its there something to be scared of? Its coaxial and 8500 an step forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Right... so... its there something to be scared of? Its coaxial and 8500 an step forward? Co-Axial is a suberb technological advance. My brother's Planet Ocean took a few weeks to settle down but after that, it's been quartz-accurate; less than a second a month off. Nothing to be scared of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 ...its more about wanting a more "elegant" and more "exclusive" movement that Ill be prouder to own and happier to resell when it comes the time... but... i have been doing my research and 8500 is slowed to 25,200... so... that makes me thing something wrong it there... and makes me think about one of the things i love the most about mechanical watches... the smoooooth swepping seconds hand... i just the swepping in a Rolex... You do know that many of the higher end in house movements run at slower a/h rates, right? e.g. Many of Patek's movements, Audemars Piguet, etc run at 21600bph... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 I remember it had got something to do with the power reserve, pug. You'd think 2 barrels would give a little more than 60 hrs of reserve, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitoSosa Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 You do know that many of the higher end in house movements run at slower a/h rates, right? e.g. Many of Patek's movements, Audemars Piguet, etc run at 21600bph... Yep... i have been reading exactly that... i have seen most cases are manual winding... thanx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 You have to look very carefully to see the stepping in a 25,200 movement. I suspect the Co-Axial doesn't run as well at 28,800, which is why they're slowing it down. My understanding was that the higher beat rate raised a problem with the sliding friction at the escapement. By de-tuning to a slightly slower rate, the problem was less prevalent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilty Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Well, I've got one with an 8500. Stilty's 8500 AT One of my main reasons for purchasing the AT was for the 8500 movement and that the watch I bought was a 1st edition. It is a keeper watch that I want to pass on to one of my children. Yes, made and designed by the Swatch group, which owns Omega, but it is still a very beautiful movement. My understanding with the dual mainsprings is that is allows for a more efficient power transfer, as opposed to just an increase in power reserve. And yes, the slower beat rate is noticeable with the sweep second, but I am fine with that too. I makes for a more classic look and follows suit with any other high end caliber. And a little bit of unpublished info, the rotor on the 8500 is tungsten for added weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitoSosa Posted August 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Ubi: so theres a problem? thats not good hehehe stilty: very nice watch man! nice dial... nice lume... nice movement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 No problems with the 8500 that I am aware of The 2500's had the beat downshifted because of concerns with the sliding friction of the escapement coupled with the higher 28800bph rate, I believe... Or, that was George Daniel's concern, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitoSosa Posted August 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Ok... so getting thisone straight... it is a GOOD movement... but not really inhouse... and doesnt make omega a manufacture... right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theblueprince Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Yes it is in-house (well, designed by ETA by that's still in-house in Swatch group world). It will from now be used in all future and present Omega models (with extra modules) apart from the Moonwatch. I'm having a problem dealt with by the Managing Director of Omega geneve at the moment so any questions let me know and i'll ask him.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now