[tony20009]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

First, my father has been a watchmaker for >45 years.

Bold 1: Ease of ownership; The brands you mention are non ETA. Difficult to service/get parts (normal watchmaker) opening the case: special tools requiered, adjustment Rolex movements:Microstella tool.

Bold 2: Omega. Co Axial is way more service prone than Omega mentions in its adverts. That's why PP Rolex etc disn't want to use it. It's a marketing trick, and runs more slow beat(25400 something compared to 28800BPM) because of reducing wear. Doh...

Bold 3: See bold 1. Special tools.

Bold 4: None of Rolex, JLC, VC, AP, PP use ETA. And you stated those brands have ease of ownership(bold 1)So I don't get it.(?)

I owned a few AP(RO, ROO, Milenary) and they are just as expensive as PP. JLC is less expensive as is Rolex(service)
IWC uses ETA in many of it's basemovements. ETA is alright, but it feels just like a 4 cylinder engine instead of a 6/8/10/12 cylinder engine to me.

FWIW

Cheers
Robin

I don't understand some of what you wrote above. I marked what I don't understand in red. I understand the words, but I'm not entirely clear on the point of them vis a vis Rolex's ease of ownership versus Omega's.

Blue:
I think we are saying the same thing. The early 2500 series co-axials were indeed problematic. The more recent versions seem to have resolved the problems of the early co-axials. Indeed, I believe Omega resolved the issue with the "D" series of the 2500s; however, I'm not going to suggest to a typical buyer that they make a distinction between the versions of the 2500 group of co-axial escapement movements as one will generally only find them at GMSes and most of the folks one will get on the phone at a GMS won't know what version is in the watch anyway.

Of course the main issue with servicing most watch movements is one of cleaning out the old oil and putting in new oil. The general idea behind the co-axial movement is that it reduces friction so as not to need lubrication. The early co-axial movements, however, still needed lubrication. AFAIK, that was the issue with many of the early 2500 family of movements: insufficient lubrication.

For a good discussion on the matter, see this: http://www.tp178.com/wsw/ap_ne/ap_new_escapement.htm

Green:
I can't comment on the reason for the corporate decisions those watch companies have made.

Orange:
Yes, it does beat more slowly. I'm not sure why that should be a concern for a typical watch consumer. I understand the general relationship between beat rate and accuracy, but I believe all of Omega's co-axials are chronometers, so how much more accurate does a typical consumer need a mechanical watch to be? In the context of Omega and Rolex, they are equal on that point, or at least a typical consumer should think of them that way.

Brown:
Until relatively recently (in Swiss watch industry terms), all those makers used traditional lever escapements. Most any watchmaker is able to work on that type of movement and simply cleaning and lubricating them is well within the scope of what one can expect a typical watchmaker to be able to accomplish. Contrast that with comparable brands' products, say, for example ALS's Saxonia or FPJ's Bleu, which have to be sent to the factory. In that regard, Rolex is easier to service/own.

ETA:
Yes, ETA movements are easier to own than just about any contemporary in-house watch movement, but the question asked wasn't about Omega/Rolex versus ETA. I mentioned ETA to provide a point of reference since it's very true that any ETA movement is going to be, in general, easier to own than a Rolex or Omega, if only because it's cheaper to own over the long haul, although there's more to it than just that.

IWC and ETA:
I wasn't clear and should have stated "IWC's in-house models such as the Portuguese."

AP Costs:
I'm assuming you are referring to maintenance costs. When I contacted AP asking about service for mine, they quoted me some $1300 for it. My local guy charged less than half that. That makes AP's watches, in my experience the most expensive to own.

In contrast, PP advertise on their site about $800 for a basic servicing of current models (http://www.patek.com/contents/default/en/costs.html). That said, they still charge more than one needs to pay for that sort of thing. (God forbid one have a quartz PP and send it to them for battery replacement. $130! Really? I sure wouldn't send a quartz watch to them for a battery replacement.)

Other:
The "world of watches" has in the past 10-15 years become muddled with the "in-house" issue. I personally feel the "in-house" thing is a crock of crap. For years and years, many of the best watches in the world weren't manufacture. Now Omega, Rolex, PP and all the rest of the major brands are making a big deal over the fact that they make their own stuff.

I don't know who started that malarkey, but it's somewhat hypocritical of damn near all the major manufacture brands to get on that train insofar as for years, the vast majority of them produced products that were absolutely not manufacture.

I mention this only because these days, Omega's are considered to be in-house watches, and so they are compared with other in-house brands. That's unfortunate, because the in-house model for creating uncomplicated watches is considerably less efficient than is the model that sources movements/ebauches from external suppliers who have the economy of scale in making them.

The result is that makers have to charge more for their products. In turn, most consumers end up judging the "quality" of the product based on the price of the things. It's quite like things are in the car industry. Honda and Toyota aren't thought of as being as high quality as BMW or MB. People point to things like the fit and finish of the vehicle, but the reality is that all the fit and finish in the world won't make the motor and tranny last longer or work better or be easier to own. After all, what is more desireable? A car with a few gaps between surfaces inside the cabin and a drive train that's going strong and will for years to come and cheap to keep, or a car with superb finishing inside and a motor that's expensive to maintain and finicky about needing attention. Sure, the difference is that of a precision machine versus a work horse, but that's what it is with watches too.

You pointed out that Omega's co-axial movement is a marketing thing. In some ways, yes, it is, but one thing that Omega/Daniels did with that movement is inspire the move away from the traditional lever escapement and toward lubrication-free movement designs. Considering the glacial pace at which the Swiss watch industry moves, and that industry's great reluctance to change, that's the significance of the co-axial escapement, IMO.

Buying Choices:
Were I choosing between an uncomplicated Omega co-axial and a Rolex of some sort, I'd probably choose the Rolex if styling concerns don't play into it. Indeed, two of my favorite watches are the Air King and Perpetual 36.

The thing that puts a lot of folks off from those two Rolexes is the size. People who have just begun to be "into" watches in the past decade or so seem to take issue with watches smaller than 38mm, some don't even care for 40mm. I don't have any issue with the size; I'm not among the folks who are swayed one way or the other by the current fascination with larger watches. My PP, for example, is a 33mm watch and it looks just fine on my wrist. My Air King is 34mm and it looks fine too. (I have 7" circumference wrists.)

Like the "in-house" thing, the whole size thing is just a marketing theme created to get folks who owned smaller, older, fine watches to buy new ones. If nothing else, the Swiss watch industry is very good at marketing.

All the best.