- Feb 11, 2009
- Reaction score
Interesting, thanks. So I take it the Omega co-axial movement doesn't impress you?From the perspective of watchmakers I've read and spoken with, a bunch of details that add up to a watch that's only more refined, but also tougher and more reliable.
The superior crystal fitment is a typical example:
Plenty more on that regrettably-now-dormant blog as well.
And to quote a Scandinavian watchmaker friend about the movement:
- Superior winding efficiency. People with a sedentary lifestyle often struggle with the fact that their 2892 (i.e omega seamaster) tends to stop or lose time.
- Breguet curve for superior isochronism.
- Parachrome hairspring in newest versions, better hairspring alloy. Google to find out why.
- Free-sprung balancewheel. Better isochronism.
- Escapewheel with endstones. Yet again better isochronism.
- Hardened steel pivots, dont know of any other makers who bother with this. For better longevity.
- Balance bridge for better shock resistance, plus the balance end-shake is adjustable through a set of nuts.
- Superior manufacturing tolerance. You have to be a watchmaker to realise just easy it is to work on a Rolex movement. Stuff just falls into place.
- Better finish all around. Nothing spectacular, just better than ETA.
- Rolex supply two different mainsprings, strong and regular. Often the amplitude will be TOO HIGH when the movement is serviced, this is because too much power reaches the balance thanks to their excellent power transmission. Then you may have to go for a "normal" hairspring to get amplitude down to the level recommended by Rolex. Don't know any other maker that has this "problem".
- Tons of other little things I can't be arsed to type out at the moment. Just trust me when I say that the 3135 kicks the 2892 to the curb every day of the week.