ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

TheVTCGuy · 22 February 2016, 04:42 PM

I went in to an Omega boutique today, and had a very interesting conversation with one of the representatives. The Omegas were absolutely gorgeous by the way, so those of you that have some in your collection I can understand the attraction

But, this thread is about what he told me concerning certifications.

He said, that the Omegas were now certified as "Master chronometers." Apparently, these movements go through the standard COSC testing... And ALSO, must show no variation when subjected to 15,000 Gauess (magnetism). He said Omega's are the only watch in the world that meet these requirements.

So, from what I understand... There are three certifications:

COSC, which is the standard -4 +6

MASTER Chronometer, which must conform to those standards while being subjected to 15,000 Gauess

And the PP, which is the Patek internal certification of (I think) +4 -2

Is this right?

Is this whole "Master" Chonometer thing real? Is it something Rolex should be doing? And finally: Do you think that COSC will introduce more stringent requirements? (Or will Rolex come up with an internal rating since they have the new more-accurate DayDate movement, the 3530?).

Cru Jones · 22 February 2016, 04:57 PM

It's pure marketing....

HogwldFLTR · 22 February 2016, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

It's pure marketing....

What he said!!!

brettpaul · 22 February 2016, 05:39 PM

Master marketing

Lakris · 22 February 2016, 05:50 PM

Omega have their watches METAS tested. I believe the tolerance is 0 to +5 (it should never run slow). METAS is more stringent than COSC, more testing of the assembled watch rather than just the movement I believe. The more stringent testing with METAS coupled with antimagnetic capabilites >15'000 gauss (the highest amount they can test with conventional equipment) gives Omega's "Master Chronometer" certification. Marketing? Yes and no :)

Syed117 · 22 February 2016, 06:06 PM

I think calling it pure marketing is a bit dismissive, but that tends to happen with most brands here.

It's a new standard. The anti magnetic properties of these new movements is something measurable. As are the rates for deviation.

Standards should always be changing. COSC certification has been around for a long time and if METAS certification is even better, we should all applaud any company that is making their watches measurably better.

At the end of day, not a single rolex can receive METAS certification because of the anti magnetism. Does it matter in day to day use? Probably not, but on paper there isn't a rebuttal for it. So you can call it marketing, but a rolex sent for METAS would fail.

capote · 22 February 2016, 07:22 PM

Even the Milgauss would fail the METAS test. That whole thing is Omega's baby and tailor fit to their specs after the release of the Omega 15K gauss. Marketing and all, it is still progress.

fskywalker · 22 February 2016, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

It's pure marketing....

This!

CRM114 · 22 February 2016, 09:38 PM

Funny that Omega's "Master Chronometer" (which actually does have some sort of measured meaning behind it) is dismissed on a forum favouring a watch brand that has trademarked the term "Superlative Chronometer", where Rolex plucked the word "superlative" out of thin air because it sounds good but otherwise meaningless.

JLC also has it's 1000 Hours Control standard. Take to or leave it, at least it's something tangible.

Just because Rolex uses a term as pure fluff doesn't mean others haven't attached some type of measure to their adjectives. It all may come under the heading of "marketing", but on the one hand there is actually something behind it to be considered, while on the other it's just the use of a fancy word that points to nothing.

COSC itself was a made-up, looser accuracy standard than the previous Observatory testing standard in response to off-the-shelf Seikos beating the Swiss at their own game.

Jocke · 23 February 2016, 05:13 AM

I will not say it's pure marketing, I would say that it is a way to reach a higher level than the COSC tests. I was just on a training course
at the Swatch Group which contained the METAS tests. These watches are subjected to the COSC tests where they test the movement
without hands, dial and rotor.. Then they installed the complete movement in the case to then undergo METAS tests. METAS test is a
complement to the COSC tests, and should therefore not replace this.

SearChart · 23 February 2016, 05:17 AM

Omega once said their Co-axial escapement doesn't need lubrication, they were wrong.
it's all marketing.

GMT Aviator · 23 February 2016, 05:30 AM

So where does this place Rolex with 'Superlative' chronometer?

Do they dunk it in custard as well.....just to be sure?

TheVTCGuy · 23 February 2016, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMT Aviator

So where does this place Rolex with 'Superlative' chronometer?

Do they dunk it in custard as well.....just to be sure?

jbenjamin1 · 23 February 2016, 06:53 AM

Read this :D

Rolex Extends Stringent -2/+2 Second In-House Watch Accuracy Tests To Entire Production

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-ex...n-house-tests/

p.s. with my 6 Rolex collections each one week to week looks good on the eyes and is within 15 seconds or so. It's fine. This comes from a guy who likes quartz like accuracy.

Spartacus · 23 February 2016, 06:55 AM

Funny that if is 'Omega' it's marketing, but if it is 'Rolex' it is considered greater scrutiny and proving why Rolex is the market leader

You guys are 100% delusional if you think that Omega and Rolex are going above and beyond COSC for marketing purposes.

There are in my opinion three major things occurring:

1) Omega & Rolex need to show greater differentiation from brands like Breitling who off the cuff can get COSC certified

2) Omega & Rolex, compared to each other, are trying to prove their individual watch making/manufacture prowess in a competitive manner

3) Omega & Rolex are trying to make you (customers) think really hard about why you are paying so much for an IWC, Hublot, Cartier, AP, PP and JLC when their (Omega & Rolex) watches are more robust, more accurate and are just as artisan/craftsman design-built.

I don't think Omega or Rolex get enough credit for their innovations, naive reviewers may laugh these innovations off as marketing, however, I can tell you, these new Omegas and Rolexes are really changing the middle tier watch market.

tigerpac · 23 February 2016, 07:51 AM

Competition can be a good thing. While accuracy is far from the most important thing to me, I'd rather have it not have it. So both sides tightening up their standards is good news.

22 February 2016, 04:42 PM	#1
TheVTCGuy Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Paul Location: San Diego Watch: 126619LB Posts: 21,540	"Master" Chronometer I went in to an Omega boutique today, and had a very interesting conversation with one of the representatives. The Omegas were absolutely gorgeous by the way, so those of you that have some in your collection I can understand the attraction But, this thread is about what he told me concerning certifications. He said, that the Omegas were now certified as "Master chronometers." Apparently, these movements go through the standard COSC testing... And ALSO, must show no variation when subjected to 15,000 Gauess (magnetism). He said Omega's are the only watch in the world that meet these requirements. So, from what I understand... There are three certifications: COSC, which is the standard -4 +6 MASTER Chronometer, which must conform to those standards while being subjected to 15,000 Gauess And the PP, which is the Patek internal certification of (I think) +4 -2 Is this right? Is this whole "Master" Chonometer thing real? Is it something Rolex should be doing? And finally: Do you think that COSC will introduce more stringent requirements? (Or will Rolex come up with an internal rating since they have the new more-accurate DayDate movement, the 3530?).

22 February 2016, 05:39 PM	#4
brettpaul "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Brett Location: Bahrain, Dubai Watch: Rolex and AP Posts: 5,538	Master marketing __________________ Photostream on Instagram brett_in_bahrain

22 February 2016, 06:06 PM	#6
Syed117 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Real Name: Syed Location: The Ether Posts: 3,388	I think calling it pure marketing is a bit dismissive, but that tends to happen with most brands here. It's a new standard. The anti magnetic properties of these new movements is something measurable. As are the rates for deviation. Standards should always be changing. COSC certification has been around for a long time and if METAS certification is even better, we should all applaud any company that is making their watches measurably better. At the end of day, not a single rolex can receive METAS certification because of the anti magnetism. Does it matter in day to day use? Probably not, but on paper there isn't a rebuttal for it. So you can call it marketing, but a rolex sent for METAS would fail. __________________ Rolex Datejust 41 126334 \| Omega Speedmaster Professional Hesalite \| Cartier Santos Large \| Tudor Black Bay 58

23 February 2016, 05:13 AM	#10
Jocke 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Jocke Location: Sweden Watch: A dozen of Rolex's Posts: 22,541	I will not say it's pure marketing, I would say that it is a way to reach a higher level than the COSC tests. I was just on a training course at the Swatch Group which contained the METAS tests. These watches are subjected to the COSC tests where they test the movement without hands, dial and rotor.. Then they installed the complete movement in the case to then undergo METAS tests. METAS test is a complement to the COSC tests, and should therefore not replace this. __________________ This message is written in perfect swenglish. What is best a custom Rolex or a Rolex that is stuck in custom? Buy a professional camera and you´re a professional photographer, buy a flute and you own a flute.

22 February 2016, 04:57 PM	#2
Cru Jones 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Paris, France Posts: 35,247	It's pure marketing....

22 February 2016, 05:50 PM	#5
Lakris "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Norway Posts: 22	Omega have their watches METAS tested. I believe the tolerance is 0 to +5 (it should never run slow). METAS is more stringent than COSC, more testing of the assembled watch rather than just the movement I believe. The more stringent testing with METAS coupled with antimagnetic capabilites >15'000 gauss (the highest amount they can test with conventional equipment) gives Omega's "Master Chronometer" certification. Marketing? Yes and no :)

22 February 2016, 07:22 PM	#7
capote "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Daniel Location: Sweden Watch: 16570 Posts: 7,315	Even the Milgauss would fail the METAS test. That whole thing is Omega's baby and tailor fit to their specs after the release of the Omega 15K gauss. Marketing and all, it is still progress.

22 February 2016, 09:38 PM	#9
CRM114 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: HK & USA Watch: GMTs,1803, 16610LV Posts: 2,001	Funny that Omega's "Master Chronometer" (which actually does have some sort of measured meaning behind it) is dismissed on a forum favouring a watch brand that has trademarked the term "Superlative Chronometer", where Rolex plucked the word "superlative" out of thin air because it sounds good but otherwise meaningless. JLC also has it's 1000 Hours Control standard. Take to or leave it, at least it's something tangible. Just because Rolex uses a term as pure fluff doesn't mean others haven't attached some type of measure to their adjectives. It all may come under the heading of "marketing", but on the one hand there is actually something behind it to be considered, while on the other it's just the use of a fancy word that points to nothing. COSC itself was a made-up, looser accuracy standard than the previous Observatory testing standard in response to off-the-shelf Seikos beating the Swiss at their own game.

23 February 2016, 05:30 AM	#12
GMT Aviator 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Real Name: Mike Location: London Posts: 3,314	So where does this place Rolex with 'Superlative' chronometer? Do they dunk it in custard as well.....just to be sure?

23 February 2016, 06:53 AM	#14
jbenjamin1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Real Name: Jay Location: NY Metropolitan Watch: Many Posts: 741	Read this :D Rolex Extends Stringent -2/+2 Second In-House Watch Accuracy Tests To Entire Production http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-ex...n-house-tests/ p.s. with my 6 Rolex collections each one week to week looks good on the eyes and is within 15 seconds or so. It's fine. This comes from a guy who likes quartz like accuracy.

23 February 2016, 06:55 AM	#15
Spartacus "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: DC Watch: Daytona Posts: 2,742	Funny that if is 'Omega' it's marketing, but if it is 'Rolex' it is considered greater scrutiny and proving why Rolex is the market leader You guys are 100% delusional if you think that Omega and Rolex are going above and beyond COSC for marketing purposes. There are in my opinion three major things occurring: 1) Omega & Rolex need to show greater differentiation from brands like Breitling who off the cuff can get COSC certified 2) Omega & Rolex, compared to each other, are trying to prove their individual watch making/manufacture prowess in a competitive manner 3) Omega & Rolex are trying to make you (customers) think really hard about why you are paying so much for an IWC, Hublot, Cartier, AP, PP and JLC when their (Omega & Rolex) watches are more robust, more accurate and are just as artisan/craftsman design-built. I don't think Omega or Rolex get enough credit for their innovations, naive reviewers may laugh these innovations off as marketing, however, I can tell you, these new Omegas and Rolexes are really changing the middle tier watch market.

23 February 2016, 07:51 AM	#16
tigerpac "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Hoboken, NJ Posts: 670	Competition can be a good thing. While accuracy is far from the most important thing to me, I'd rather have it not have it. So both sides tightening up their standards is good news.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)