2005SUBMARINER Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 much closer to the original with the clear case back have a look .. new omega gmt with clear case back 2628 movement .. oh & paul already has the clear back version but with an eta 2836 , if he replaces it with the 2892 it would be dead on to the original .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trustywatchguy Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 much closer to the original with the clear case back have a look .. new omega gmt with clear case back 2628 movement .. oh & paul already has the clear back version but with an eta 2836 , if he replaces it with the 2892 it would be dead on to the original .. Well.. I just gottten the new Omega GMT with clear case back too. =P Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Manny Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 I looks like it would need to be a Nickel movment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 Indeed. With nickel movement and OMEGA engraving this would be fantastic. The pearl still sucks though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronus Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 The GMT functionality would still be wrong I imagine. It should have an adjustable hour hand and not GMT hand. That's what's put me off every true GMT (Omega, R*l*x etc) watches. The PAM GMT has an adjustable GMT hand just like the genuine, which is partly why I got it, although not much use when travelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005SUBMARINER Posted May 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 i guess a nickel eta 2836 with the omega logo would make it look a lil more closer to the original Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00-Aspire eshop Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Make a wish!? W-2029 SEAMASTER GMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwai02 Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 I wish there is one with 2892, as I have the genuine rotor and bezel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00-Aspire eshop Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 I wish there is one with 2892, as I have the genuine rotor and bezel. with 2892 and GMT functional? I do'nt see such movement in the market. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJGladeRaider Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 much closer to the original with the clear case back have a look .. new omega gmt with clear case back 2628 movement .. oh & paul already has the clear back version but with an eta 2836 , if he replaces it with the 2892 it would be dead on to the original .. Wouldn't that need to be a 2893? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00-Aspire eshop Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Wouldn't that need to be a 2893? Bill The cost will be a big problem. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronus Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 ETA 2893 is the ETA GMT movement, however Omega don't use these movements, even though the parent company owns both. Omega has true GMT functionality - adjustable hour hand, not GMT hand. Therefore an ETA 2893 movement still would not be accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostfaceZX Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 The gen also uses the co-axial movement and has 6 impulses per second...I assume the ETA's mentioned have 8 impulses per second. There aren't any ETAs for reps that use co-axial technology is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r11co Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 (edited) Omega's calibre 1128 is their own GMT modified and Co-Axial version of the 1120 which is itself a refinement of the ETA 2892. This is sadly where our reps fall far short - generic ETA's just don't cut it any more. They are way wrong for Rolex reps already (despite shitty cutouts on the rotors and pink stickers on the gears) and are getting further away from the custom movements too. When Panny start doing their own then we're completely screwed. I hope it motivates the rep factories to come up with something better than a bastardised 2836 day-date movement pretending to be a GMT. At this rate you would be better with a decent Asian movement in one of these - it will function properly as a GMT and replicate the beat of the co-axial movement more accurately. Although some will still try and argue a completely wrong, fudged ETA engine is better..... Edited June 1, 2006 by r11co Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crystalcranium Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Agreed. I've limited my rep purchases to SS unmodified 7750 chrono clones and to unadulterated 2836 closed caseback replicas. I dont quite understand the draw of the display caseback in watches that do not have them in the genuine versions just to display a gold plated 2836 movement with an engraved trademark rotor or the attempt to replicate the appearance of the rotor on an obvious non original movement in a closed or clear caseback. I've also stayed away from anything gold plated because it looks so fake. Even gold plated watches I have worn seldom begin to change color after a few years. The reason I buy a rep is so they LOOK so close to the original that they impress even owners of originals and un-enlightened jewelers. I do understand the appeal of the "Perfect Clone" where both the inside and the outside are exactly the same as the original but the only two I've seen like this are two non-Rolex/Omega reps, a Franck Muller Casablanca 2892 platinum rotor watch and a Cartier Tank original movement clone both sold by Josh. Even so, these exact look alikes probably wont fool anyone truly knowledgeable. My local jeweler buys watches from all over the world and she told me she had to take a certification course where part of the process was identifying reps from genuines. Interestingly enough, appearance is not the primary giveaway, feel is. I took my Rolex rep to her and asked her to let me know what had to be changed and the first 3 things she mentioned had to do with the feel of the watch in her hand and other non visual characteristics like how the bracelet links sound as they rub against eachother. I guess what I'm trying to say in this diatribe is that I feel simplicity is best. My best bet in a rep that is going to fool the vast amjority of individuals is one without many bells and whistles. The more complexity you try to emulate, or the more complexity you try to add to a simple design, the more you are apt to give yourself away. Omega's calibre 1128 is their own GMT modified and Co-Axial version of the 1120 which is itself a refinement of the ETA 2892. This is sadly where our reps fall far short - generic ETA's just don't cut it any more. They are way wrong for Rolex reps already (despite shitty cutouts on the rotors and pink stickers on the gears) and are getting further away from the custom movements too. When Panny start doing their own then we're completely screwed. I hope it motivates the rep factories to come up with something better than a bastardised 2836 day-date movement pretending to be a GMT. At this rate you would be better with a decent Asian movement in one of these - it will function properly as a GMT and replicate the beat of the co-axial movement more accurately. Although some will still try and argue a completely wrong, fudged ETA engine is better..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.