Originally posted by Chefcook
Nicely done, but for me here on the other side of the atlantic ocean reality is behaving quite different to the theories you use to make the reader believe that the co-axial escapement was a step back: My Rolexes are far less accurate than my Panerai or my Omega. Both run lower speeds. And with longer power reserve.
I don't doubt you - but your small sample size does nothing to prove or disprove my article.

When taking Walt Arnsteins article as a base for argumentation you only quoted the last sentence,
I linked to the entire article so that the reader could read it. But the conclusion I quote is the author's conclusion.

The reason for Omega to run the co-axial escapement at lower speeds was that George Daniels designed it for. Higher speeds cause teeth impact problems with the co-axial escapement and actually Omega did not go back from 28,800 bph to 25,200 bph - they went up from 18,000 bph, the speed the co-axial escapement was designed for.
A)I've researched the Co-Axial extensively, and never have come accross anything which supports this notion.

B)You're only further proving my point - if the Co-Axial escapement cannot perform the task that a traditional escapement on a 28,800 beat speed movement can, then there's no point using it.

[quote]
You also forgot to mention that the Omega cal. 2500 uses the same free sprung balance system as the Rolex which you pointed out to be the better solution.

Uhhhmm....no I didn't. Go back and read my article.

The fact that Omegas come with a COSC certificate is nice - but what is Rolex intent when delivering nearly every watch with a COSC certificate? IMO the same: Giving the buyer the feeling of super accuracy where it is just average. And in side by side comparisson the Rolex 3135 is far more average at all points than the co-axial Omegas.
A)Are you trying to counter or support what I have to say about COSC certification?

B)The part above I bolded is a pretty sweeping gneralization for which you offer no proof or support.