Watches

0 readers

1 users here now

A community for watch & horology discussion.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@style.land

[Omega Speedmaster] Are Omegas poorly engineered compared to other brands? (alien.top)

submitted 1 year ago by Turin_Laundromat@alien.top to c/watches@style.land

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm new to watches and I wanted my first to be an Omega. I like them because of immature reasons like the moon thing and the James Bond thing, but after looking into them for a couple of days I see that they have low reserves compared to other brands. Rolex Submariner has 70 hours, and even the much lower-priced Tudor Black Bay has 70 hours, while Speedmaster and Seamaster come in at 50-55 hours. It seems like that's an indication of worse design and engineering. Or, if not, what am I missing?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] elektero@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

why is power reserve the characteristic you consider the most important?

Omega has a co-axial movement complication that is unique and a METAs certification that is equivalent to Rolex superlative chronometer and better than Tudor cosc.

Omega has the movement completely antimagnetic up to 15000 gauss, something Rolex does not have, and when you buy it you can see the testing done at such high magnetic field.

Omega water resistance is defined by more stringent parameters then the standard testing.

Power reserve is nice to have, but it is also easy achievable by just reducing the frequency rate at which the movement works, so to me is really the last thing I would look for in a movement.

[–] Turin_Laundromat@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

This is helpful, thank you.

load more comments (1 replies)