Is a Submariner an upgrade from a PO?

[JBat]

It probably won't, and I hope not. I want my PO to last the rest of my life. But you took the discussion outside the parameters set forth earlier in the thread.

[slevin kelevra]

Originally Posted by Thai

Yup, keep waiting for the 8500 to screw up or have design flaws like the 3135...it ain't happening! I hope that i won't ever read a watchmaker's article preferring 2892 over the 8500...that would just be so insulting!

Please see C.Davidsons post about PO issues. Im not an expert in movments and how they work but it sure seems to me like his has some issues!

As for stating that the 3135 has design flaws, Have the issues that were brought up in that review ever materialised in real life??

Not that I have heard of or read on here.

Again its all about personla choice, I love my Sub and the PO does nothing for me. But each to their own, as long as you are happy! Thats the main thing. Omega owners just love to try and bash Rolex.

[warrior]

the po chrono is not the same as the PO. two different movements.

Originally Posted by slevin kelevra

Please see C.Davidsons post about PO issues. Im not an expert in movments and how they work but it sure seems to me like his has some issues!

As for stating that the 3135 has design flaws, Have the issues that were brought up in that review ever materialised in real life??

Not that I have heard of or read on here.

Again its all about personla choice, I love my Sub and the PO does nothing for me. But each to their own, as long as you are happy! Thats the main thing. Omega owners just love to try and bash Rolex.

[Thai]

Originally Posted by slevin kelevra

Please see C.Davidsons post about PO issues. Im not an expert in movments and how they work but it sure seems to me like his has some issues!

As for stating that the 3135 has design flaws, Have the issues that were brought up in that review ever materialised in real life??

Not that I have heard of or read on here.

C. Davidson has PO Chrono...Omega Coaxial Chrono has issues for a long time now. But, the regular coaxial movement (2500C) has been quite reliable...it is based on the ETA2892 movement with the coaxial escapement placed in it.

The Omega in-house caliber 8500 is a totally from-ground-up design from Omega...it is built around the Coaxial escapement design (instead of the other way around). And the 8500 is a marvelous movement, IMHO. :)

Note: my YM (bought new from AD) has not been an icon of durability...and it has one of the best (if not the best) Rolex movement...caliber 2235.

As for the design flaws and reality, did you guys even READ the links posted?? See post #104. Oh no, those flaws do have REAL PRACTICAL implications!

[slevin kelevra]

I Stand corrected regarding the PO chrono then. My mistake.

BUT

"The early wear is the result of 7 years of use with no service. Unfortunately, many watch owners bypass the advice of the manufacturer to oil and clean the watch periodically. Mechanical watches should be cleaned and oiled every 2-3 years. You will rarely find a watch with no problem after even 5 years without servicing. "

I would fully expect the movement to have issues if it went 7 years with no service.

[Thai]

A few of you have selective reading!! Here is what i posted earlier:

Originally Posted by Thai

Hmmm, you guys may want to read this article: http://www.chronometrie.com/rolex3135/rolex3135.html

Quote at the end of the article:
"And the winner is…

Of these three movements which one do I like the best? If accuracy is your only criteria, then it doesn’t matter which one you choose as there really is virtually no difference between them in that regard....

As for me, please keep in mind that no movement is perfect and that they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Having said that though there is absolutely no question in my mind, that I prefer the ETA 2892-2A over the other two. Okay, so it’s been around almost half a century and in many ways isn’t as sophisticated as the Rolex – no Breguet hairspring, or Parachrom hairspring material etc – but during its long lifetime in its best available chronometer version, it has proven itself to be an exceptionally accurate, reliable and tough movement. Its two main advantages over the 3135 are that it’s quite a bit thinner, only 3.6mm thick versus 6mm, and has only one major weakness – the inefficiency of its automatic winding system, as I mentioned in my earlier review of it. While good enough for most reasonably active folk, it is not efficient enough for those people, young or old, who lead a sedentary lifestyle.

The 3135 is the youngest, most sophisticated and best looking of these three and it has many admirable strengths. A longer power reserve and instantaneous date change to name a few. As for the weaknesses of the 3135? In my honest opinion there are only two glaring weaknesses. The first is that the oscillating weight pivots on a steel post that is riveted to it and held in place by two jewels. The small circumference of said post, coupled with Rolex’s simple and efficient reversing wheels and gearing ratios, greatly improves the winding efficiency of the automatic unit. This is probably the most efficient automatic winding system available today. But unfortunately its tiny diameter doesn’t give enough support to the weight to stop it from hitting against the movement plates every time the watch is subjected to even light perpendicular blows, let alone strong ones. I think that an upgrade to an oscillating weight pivoting on ball bearing races, like they’ve done in their new chronograph movement caliber 4130, is long overdue in order to eliminate this problem. It would be even better if they used lubrication free zirconium oxide ball bearings like JLC, PP and others that are doing so today, not only for their strength, but also for their efficiency over steel ones.

The other weakness is something that may or may not manifest itself as readily, depending on the circumstances and how often the watch is serviced. This potential problem is easily understood by any watchmaker who has serviced a lot of these movements. The problem is that the 2 setting wheels under the dial, and the two small and thin posts that they pivot on, can be easily damaged if the lubrication runs dry. If the grease on the canon pinion dries up due to age or moisture in the watch case, the teeth on these small thin wheels will break off. The more severe problem is if the lubrication on the posts runs dry, then the first post will be worn away in no time at all, as shown in the photo above. This is less of a problem on the second post as it is a steel pin that is not riveted into the main plate. So it can be easily replaced if it is worn or damaged. Unfortunately the first post is part of the main plate, and is made of brass just like it. Therefore if this post gets damaged like that, the only way to repair it is by replacing the entire main plate. An expensive proposition at best. It’s worth noting that this was not a problem on Rolex’s older caliber 3035 because the diameter of the post was quite a bit thicker, as was the set wheel itself. Please note that this shouldn’t be a problem for those who take care of their watches and have them serviced at regular intervals – every four to five years as recommended by most factories today. I am 100% in agreement with this recommended service interval."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two things. 1. Rolex knows about the 1st weakness because they fixed it with the Daytona Rolex movement...yet, even then, the Daytona solution is not as sophisticated nor practical as the newer movements. BTW, the Omega 8500 caliber uses zirconium bearings and this adds to the luster of less dependency on lubrication.

2. Seemingly, there is some cost cutting when Rolex went from 3035 to 3135, as noted by the 2nd weakness of the 3135.

I am not saying that the Sub is a bad watch...and as stated before, i prefer it (or SD) over the PO because it is such an iconic watch. However, all of these blinded enthusiasms for the Rolex movement are not founded by facts nor by people who work on these Rolex movements.

[Mystro]

"However, all of these blinded enthusiasms for the Rolex movement are not founded by facts nor by people who work on these Rolex movements."

Very well said. There is also a under current of Rolex superiority and smugness present with the brand. I was guilty of this too when I first bought my Rolex but have matured in my watch collecting career. I now find that ignorant smugness disturbing.

[slevin kelevra]

Who here is ignorantly smug?? Not me! I havent once said a bad thing about the PO (other than its not to my personal tastes) Im simply trying to put my point of view accross in defending a watch that I picked over any Omega.

I actually think its an inherant jealousy thing that (some)Omaga owners have, yes they own a good watch(no one has said otherwise) but they are constantly trying to one up Rolex mainly to make themselves feel better I reckon.

[Mystro]

No, I was never implying anyone here. I was more or less describing my various Rolex AD experiences.
Watchaholics know enough not to be smug.

Originally Posted by slevin kelevra

Who here is ignorantly smug?? Not me! I havent once said a bad thing about the PO (other than its not to my personal tastes) Im simply trying to put my point of view accross in defending a watch that I picked over any Omega.

I actually think its an inherant jealousy thing that (some)Omaga owners have, yes they own a good watch(no one has said otherwise) but they are constantly trying to one up Rolex mainly to make themselves feel better I reckon.

[Thai]

Originally Posted by slevin kelevra

Who here is ignorantly smug?? Not me! I havent once said a bad thing about the PO (other than its not to my personal tastes) Im simply trying to put my point of view accross in defending a watch that I picked over any Omega.

I actually think its an inherant jealousy thing that (some)Omaga owners have, yes they own a good watch(no one has said otherwise) but they are constantly trying to one up Rolex mainly to make themselves feel better I reckon.

I like my YM.

[warrior]

I'm glad you said some Omega owners. Alot of the Omega owners here ( and those that prefer Omega in some instances) have Rolex watches. The jealousy theory doesn't quite wash for many enthusiasts on watch forums who have collected over a period of time. Even more so on broad based forums not primarily devoted to a particular watch brand.

Originally Posted by slevin kelevra

Who here is ignorantly smug?? Not me! I havent once said a bad thing about the PO (other than its not to my personal tastes) Im simply trying to put my point of view accross in defending a watch that I picked over any Omega.

I actually think its an inherant jealousy thing that (some)Omaga owners have, yes they own a good watch(no one has said otherwise) but they are constantly trying to one up Rolex mainly to make themselves feel better I reckon.

[openwheelracing]

Originally Posted by slevin kelevra

Who here is ignorantly smug?? Not me! I havent once said a bad thing about the PO (other than its not to my personal tastes) Im simply trying to put my point of view accross in defending a watch that I picked over any Omega.

I actually think its an inherant jealousy thing that (some)Omaga owners have, yes they own a good watch(no one has said otherwise) but they are constantly trying to one up Rolex mainly to make themselves feel better I reckon.

I actually like my PO over my GMT IIc for daily use. No jealousy, just love the PO. LOVE IT!!!!

[JBat]

Originally Posted by Thai

A few of you have selective reading!! Here is what i posted earlier:



Two things. 1. Rolex knows about the 1st weakness because they fixed it with the Daytona Rolex movement...yet, even then, the Daytona solution is not as sophisticated nor practical as the newer movements. BTW, the Omega 8500 caliber uses zirconium bearings and this adds to the luster of less dependency on lubrication.

2. Seemingly, there is some cost cutting when Rolex went from 3035 to 3135, as noted by the 2nd weakness of the 3135.

I am not saying that the Sub is a bad watch...and as stated before, i prefer it (or SD) over the PO because it is such an iconic watch. However, all of these blinded enthusiasms for the Rolex movement are not founded by facts nor by people who work on these Rolex movements.

That's mighty conciliatory of you! I needed a good laugh! And I think you have "blinded enthusiasms" <sic> for Omega!

[JBat]

Post deleted.

[Tools]

It's amazing how some readers can find an article by a watchmaker (not a structural or design engineer), who claims some "technical fault", and run with it when the facts do not show the claims to be true..

The Rolex self wind mechanism is likely the most efficient on the market..even with the solid bushing axle (and because of it).. This makes the effieiency almost total, the rotor quiet, and repairs easy and inexpensive - and it's an expendible part (like gaskets) replaced on every service... The other "weakness" claim that the inner post can destruct easily when he is working on a 15 year old movement that is not showing any wear is just plain silly.. Practically every watchmaker and watch Engineer has nothing but praise for Rolex robust, accurate and well engineered movements....

As for Fan-boys of Omega's Co-Axial, the original 2500A practically self destructed within a couple of years...and had to be upgraded to the 2500
B, which too didn't last, and now it runs at a slower speed and with improvements the 2500C may make it to the downward projection of 8 years....

The 8500 is what Omega and Swatch is hanging their hat on... there has been zero in depth analyzing of this movement....everything about it is based on Omegas claims - and they may be true...but get a grip..

the Co-axial needs a freesprung balance to even work... Rolex has had this for years.. It's Omegas first time.

The Co-axial needs to be slowed down to 25,200 for the escapement to survive.. and that is on the edge of it's performance as the original design engineering for the Co-axial escapement was based on 18,000 BPH

Let's just stop trying to compare what Omega has just developed to try to get back in the game with what Rolex has had out for 20 years - It's apples and oranges..

People like one or the other and search out miniscule details to try and "prove" their point...but there is no proof... It's like Ford and Chevy...Like Mercedes and BMW...

They're different....that's the whole idea behind the science of Horology, and the hobby of enthusiasts.......

[Thai]

Originally Posted by Tools

Practically every watchmaker and watch Engineer has nothing but praise for Rolex robust, accurate and well engineered movements....

The 8500 is what Omega and Swatch is hanging their hat on... there has been zero in depth analyzing of this movement....everything about it is based on Omegas claims - and they may be true...but get a grip.

I would love to read more about these "practically every watchmaker/engineer" writeups if you have any.

Sometimes, being late to a party is a good thing....

[Mystro]

The only thing a thread like this is going to accomplish is pointing out the merits of each caliber. In the the end there is no loser here with either of these movements. I voted with my wallet....I own both so I guess that makes me doubly happy.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Thai

I would love to read more about these "practically every watchmaker/engineer" writeups if you have any.

Sometimes, being late to a party is a good thing....

You can google as well as I can.....

and you can buy the same watchmaker journals and books and study up...

[Thai]

Originally Posted by Tools

You can google as well as I can.....

and you can buy the same watchmaker journals and books and study up...

Yeah, ok.... Somehow, i figured that would be the response from you....

Have a good weekend.

[JBat]

The PO is one handsome watch, no question. Very rugged looking.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by JBat

The PO is one handsome watch, no question. Very rugged looking.

It is a beauty.. I think their best looking watch since the discontinuation of the sword hand SMP..

And the 8500 is the first Omega movement to be produced at the old Omega plant since they closed the doors back in 1984, so it is becoming a great Omega Beacon..

It has a great future ahead of it..

[openwheelracing]

Yikes....... two thumbs way down now......

I think Tool should take his own advice in his sig. A mod should know better.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by openwheelracing

Yikes....... two thumbs way down now......

I think Tool should take his own advice in his sig. A mod should know better.

A Mod should know better than what ??

Biting into an obvious troll posting intended to bash one watch against another ??

[openwheelracing]

CHILL, it's just a watch forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tools]

Originally Posted by openwheelracing

CHILL, it's just a watch forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

True words...

But we do need to step in when members start to get too wound up with other members.... It seldom leads to a good ending.........

[Thai]

Originally Posted by Tools

True words...

But we do need to step in when members start to get too wound up with other members.... It seldom leads to a good ending.........

Actually, i found the discussion to be lighthearted. Arguing peacefully is OK by me, esp. when i do back up what i write, instead of boasting wild claims with no actual proof. As a current Rolex owner myself, i don't mind a little back and forth. Should we all just group hug all the time and blindly proclaim that Rolex is perfect and can do no wrong? And isn't this the Omega subforum?

[Tools]

Tut, tut... You don't back up your claims.. You cite a single article of opinion as your basis for argument....

While I only research and collect Omega and Rolex... I don't pit one against the other.. I accept each for what it is.

However...here are some experts words.

With Rolex, it has it's attractors and detractors, but at the end of the day, there needs to be some consensus....

Watch Time Magazine is America's leading watch magazine and subjects watches to rigorous tests, scoring them on a scale up to 100 points. They are independent and have no manufacturers input to the tests... here is an excerpt of a summary of Watch Time Test Results as reported in the magazine.

> As of the April2009 issue, Watch Time had tested a total of 173 watches, nine from Rolex and 164 from other brands.

> On average, Rolex watches were rated 9.3 points higher than the average score of all other watches tested. The average score of all Rolex watches was 90.7 versus an average of 81.4 for all non-Rolex watches.

> The highest score ever achieved in a Watch Time test is 95, issued to the Rolex Yacht-Master II in 2008

> Only 2 watches have earned a score of 94. One of them is the Rolex GMT Master II n 2006

> A Rolex also holds the third highest score: The Rolex Sea-Dweller Deepsea received a score of 93 in 2009.

The test data make it clear that the top performer in Watch Time tests is Rolex.....


I think that considering these watches all contain the flagship Rolex 3135 movement and the Rolex 3186 movement, as well as the latest YMII designs, it speaks volumes for the watch enthusiast when considering these watches and movements...

[Thai]

Originally Posted by Tools

Watch Time Magazine is America's leading watch magazine and subjects watches to rigorous tests, scoring them on a scale up to 100 points. They are independent and have no manufacturers input to the tests... here is an excerpt of a summary of Watch Time Test Results as reported in the magazine.

Actually, i found TWO sources...selective reading like i said. Does WatchTime break open the case? I don't believe so in most of their watch tests. WT is great when it comes to comparing movement performance and case designs (and whatnots). They also copy a lot of the specs from manufacturing data. But, i am not sure if they actually keep a watch long enough nor do they breakdown a movement into pieces like the TWO articles that i linked. But then again, being a good moderator and a subscriber to these "books" like yourself, i am sure that you already knew this.

BTW, i like WT. I check it out often at the bookstores.

[zippaul]

Sub versus PO, PO versus Sub...blah, blah, blah. Is it an upgrade? A downgrade? Blah, blah,blah. I owned the PO and traded it to get the Sub LV. Now that is simply what I did because I, for many reasons, wanted to. I'm not sure what makes one an upgrade or a downgrade versus the other in either case, it is very personal. What nuances about the watch that makes me happy might not even be a consideration in your book and vice versa. They are both beautiful timepieces and represent just a couple of choices available. Great choices either way if and only if it makes you happy.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Thai

Actually, i found TWO sources...selective reading like i said. ...........

Well, selective reading on whose part..

You base your entire argument on two overhauls of old watches that show a worn axle rotor. Something that you might find in almost any Rolex (or any other watch) that has been in continuous use for 7 years on one and 15 years for the other... One asserts that it is a technical or engineering flaw...

But, it is simply a worn rotor axle. No design flaw, no technical mistake.... a decision by Rolex Engineers to use a solid axle and bushing as a positive drive for the auto wind mechanism. This design is quiet, lacks the ball bearing wobble as found in the Valjoux 7750; is precise and easily replaced at a low cost..

Just like it is known that tires on a car will wear, so it is known that watch parts will wear. This is one of those parts and changed routinely at service time along with the Great wheel, pallet jewels and mainspring, etc..... You would have us believe that because these parts too wear, they are improperly engineered or "flawed" .