Originally posted by Chefcook
Original von jholbrook
I don't doubt you - but your small sample size does nothing to prove or disprove my article.
Sorry, but your article does not prove anything at all, it is just a theory.
Actually, as the article clearly states, it's an opinion piece, which presents many facts to support my opinions. You're of course welcome to disagree with the opinions, but once again, the experience with your own watches makes no difference one way or the other. It's a statistically insignificant sample size.

I linked to the entire article so that the reader could read it. But the conclusion I quote is the author's conclusion.
You quoted the sentence you like most, not the whole conclusion of W. Arnstein.
Look I read the article (did you??), and what I quoted essentially was the conclusion of his article. I don't see anyone else suggesting I took the quote out of context or misrepresented the article in any way. I made mention of the article and quoted the article because they support my premise.

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.
A) Read that some time ago in a text from Dr Daniels hisself. I'll search for it again and send it to you.

B) I strongly disagree with your opinion that there is no point for using an escapement slower than 28.8k bph. As I pointed out before other things must be taken in consideration when judging a movements accuracy based on its layout.
My issue is that Omega abandoned a traditional lever escapement in favor of the Co-Axial, but had to step back the beat speed of their movements to do it. In my mind, the benefits of the Co-Axial escapement do not outweigh the sacrifices made - it's a case of one step forward, two steps backward. Depending on you value the benefits of the Co-Axial escaptement vs. costs, you may disagree.

Obviously many factors impact accuracy in a mechanical movement - I never stated otherwise.


The whole point of the co-axial escapement is the elimination (nearly) of sliding friction which results in a much more stable speed of the balance wheel. The co-axial escapement has a lot less loss of speed during every beat.
Prof. J.C. Nicolet states in THIS ARTICLE that the efficiency for a co-axial escapement is 3% up to the lever escapement and the gaingain in energy transmitted is therefore on the order of 10% to 12%. This results in the same better stability of a faster beating movement.
Walt Odets shows in THIS ARTICLE ON TIMEZONE that the difference in amplitude between dial up and crown down in a co-axial movement is nearly zero where one expects 20 to 40 degree in a movement with lever escapement. "This consistency virtually eliminates anisochronistic effects in positions.".
Yes, I am aware of how the Co-Axial escapement works, and it's theoretical pro's and con's. My opinion remains unchanged.

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.
A) You are trying to give the reader the feeling that Omega takes a 'weak' certification as argument for the accuracy of their movements. At least I read a negative undertone in it. It seems to me that you are searching for a negative point for Omega where it is not a negative point for Rolex, who does exactly the same.
Did you actually read my article? Go back and read it again, because your point A is entirely innacurate. Let me quote myself to prove the point:
Without going too far off on a tangent, suffice to say that Rolex, Omega, and the entire luxury mechanical watch making industry have for too long allowed the COSC accuracy standard of -4 to +6 seconds per day be their defining benchmark for success.
Clearly there is no basis to your point "A"


B) The Rolex 3135 is a movement without mechanic innovation and shows a technical state of the 1960s. Omega does something new with their ca. 2500 and with certain success. What's more average, new or conservative?
Firstly, if your point about the 3135 is valid (which I do not subscribe to) then you might as well condem the entire mechanical watch making industry for not having any real innovation for at least 100 years.

Secondly, I don't don't subscribe to the notion that "change for the sake of change" is good. Change must improve what was before or there is no need to change.