Quote:
Originally Posted by Deyn Man
looks good! i wonder why  ... oh! might be because it looks like a rolex! hehehehe! 
IMO, not a fan of the omega co-axial movement thingy... read something about it but didn't attempt to know the details.. if i remember correctly, it's short of a "gimmick" (sorry for the lack of a better term) and that it was "offered" to rolex and they didn't even bother with it (i hope i'm getting this right...)... it's not that it's "bad". but if you put in the price into the equation (as well as the valuation of Omegas), for US$6,800, i'd rather have a rolex on my wrist...
hope i didn't offend anyone.. again, just my opinion... |
The issue with the co-axial escapement is that it
should offer better accuracy over time and require less service and little or no lubrication. The problem is that the remainder of the watch needs cleaning and lubrication and modern lubricants are light years better than the older lubricants. I don't think that it was a really groundbreaking innovation. There were some initial problems with the 2500 movement, and they were slowed down and modified to improve performance. I am suprised that Omega would create a premium new diver and not put the premium new 8500 movement inside. Perhaps it relates to cost control/reduction. If it was an extra $1000, it may be a really hard sell, though still less than the Deep Sea.
