Omega needs to stop using ETA movements

[Marlboro.]

I would have bought the Speedmaster Mark II if it had a better movement, I love the case shape and the look but the chronograph pushers just don't feel good enough. Such a shame.

[Tools]

You do know that Omega and ETA are part of the same company.

The co-axial 3330, with silicon balance spring, is as much Omega as you will find in any Omega timepiece for the past 40 years.

[JR16]

There’s nothing wrong w ETA movements .... want a “better”’movement, buy a different/more expensive watch .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

you have me scratching my head.

Are you associating the physical tactile touch of a pusher with the functionality, accuracy, robustness and longevity of a movement?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Marlboro.]

Originally Posted by Tools

You do know that Omega and ETA are part of the same company.

The co-axial 3330, with silicon balance spring, is as much Omega as you will find in any Omega timepiece for the past 40 years.

The Caliber 3330 is merely a modified Longines L688 movement, the same base that Longine uses in £1500 watches. How can that be as much Omega as you can find? The chronograph movement feels exactly the same as the Longines St-Imier chronographs.

[Marlboro.]

Originally Posted by 77T

you have me scratching my head.

Are you associating the physical tactile touch of a pusher with the functionality, accuracy, robustness and longevity of a movement?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No, just the robustness and construction quality. It feels as if the pushers don't fit properly and are only loosely connected to the movement. I haven't known any other chronograph movement to feel like that.

[VanAdian]

For real?

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by Marlboro.

No, just the robustness and construction quality. It feels as if the pushers don't fit properly and are only loosely connected to the movement. I haven't known any other chronograph movement to feel like that.

I do not think that has anything to do with the movement but the actual construction/design of the pushers is what feels like that.

[77T]

Originally Posted by toxicavenger

I do not think that has anything to do with the movement but the actual construction/design of the pushers is what feels like that.

+1

The machining of the pusher stems to properly fit in the tubes that are screwed into the case + the O rings fitment are not part of the movement.

How Omega’s tolerances and QC compares to Rolex or any other chrono maker is unknown - but feeling one is not the same as others methinks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Marlboro.]

Originally Posted by 77T

+1

The machining of the pusher stems to properly fit in the tubes that are screwed into the case + the O rings fitment are not part of the movement.

How Omega’s tolerances and QC compares to Rolex or any other chrono maker is unknown - but feeling one is not the same as others methinks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

But both the Omega 3330 and the Longines Saint-Imier have the same loose feeling, which is why I think it because of the design and manufacture of the chronograph module rather than the case or it being a one-off QC issue. They surely have the same pusher stems, none of the other Omega chronographs had this feeling (Moonwatch or Speedmaster 57).

[MikeyV]

One of the things that really get me going is the fact that Rolex makes nearly everything (including the lume now, I hear) in-house. I think that's cool as hell.

Then I started looking at Tudors. No interest in the ETA ones. Got me a Pelagos with the Tudor movement.

I think that a company that positions themselves like Omega does should use nothing but their own Omega movements. I'm sure that's where Tudor is going.

Maybe it makes no difference, and maybe it's pure cork-sniffery.
But for me, it really is the icing on the cake.


Think if you could get a Porsche Cayman with the flat-four Subaru engine. What? You'd save some money.

See.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Marlboro.

The Caliber 3330 is merely a modified Longines L688 movement, the same base that Longine uses in £1500 watches. How can that be as much Omega as you can find? The chronograph movement feels exactly the same as the Longines St-Imier chronographs.

Omega, ETA, and Longines, are all the same company and have been for 35 years.

Both use the modified ETA Ao8.Lo1, which is a reworked Valjoux 7750. Omega modifies the ebauch and adds their Co-axial/silicon spring to make it uniquely "Omega".

Your heading was "Omega needs to stop using ETA movements".. Unlikely, they are ETA.

[bonovox]

I will refer you to point 1 in this article.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/tw...-to-avoid-them

-Will

[yessir69]

Should Patek stop using Lemania movements? Should AP stop using JLC movements? Are you just saying ETA is too low-brow?

[toxicavenger]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

One of the things that really get me going is the fact that Rolex makes nearly everything (including the lume now, I hear) in-house. I think that's cool as hell.

Then I started looking at Tudors. No interest in the ETA ones. Got me a Pelagos with the Tudor movement.

I think that a company that positions themselves like Omega does should use nothing but their own Omega movements. I'm sure that's where Tudor is going.

Maybe it makes no difference, and maybe it's pure cork-sniffery.
But for me, it really is the icing on the cake.


Think if you could get a Porsche Cayman with the flat-four Subaru engine. What? You'd save some money.

See.

It might be cool but in house does not always relate to good.

[Marlboro.]

Originally Posted by Tools

Omega, ETA, and Longines, are all the same company and have been for 35 years.

Both use the modified ETA Ao8.Lo1, which is a reworked Valjoux 7750. Omega modifies the ebauch and adds their Co-axial/silicon spring to make it uniquely "Omega".

Your heading was "Omega needs to stop using ETA movements".. Unlikely, they are ETA.

They are not ETA, they are part of the same parent group but are separate entities with their own production facilities. If all swatch products were made in the facility you may have a point. Saying "they are ETA" is the same as saying that Certina is Omega, just because they are in the same group does not mean they are integrated with each other.

[Marlboro.]

Originally Posted by yessir69

Should Patek stop using Lemania movements? Should AP stop using JLC movements? Are you just saying ETA is too low-brow?

I can only comment on watches I have experienced in person.

[AEC]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

...I think that a company that positions themselves like Omega does should use nothing but their own Omega movements. I'm sure that's where Tudor is going...

Well, maybe, some day. The latest chronographs released by Tudor use a movement developed and produced in partnership with Breitling. I happen to think it's a dynamite movement, and I think it's a great idea for good watch companies to partner on development and production because it probably results in better value for my watch-dollar.

[shaunylw]

I would be more concerned that you have been here a month and started 11 threads already.

[AEC]

Originally Posted by doctorwho?

The chronograph movement is not developed in a partnership with Tudor. It’s developed completely by Breitling and it’s integrated movement manufacturer Kelek.
They trade the movement in exchange for Tudors 3-hand in-house movement.

Thanks for clarifying. I guess I gave Tudor the benefit of the doubt

[Marlboro.]

Originally Posted by doctorwho?

The chronograph movement is not developed in a partnership with Tudor. It’s developed completely by Breitling and it’s integrated movement manufacturer Kelek.
They trade the movement in exchange for Tudors 3-hand in-house movement.

Is there any information on which watches Breitling have used the Tudor movements in?