Woke up 3 weeks ago today, my PO no workie...

[244335]

Insult a guy who's sticking up for you. Stay classy.

It was my mistake. I thought he was accusing me of slamming Omega. That should have been clear from my post. Several people here have been bad-mouthing me for deciding to finally post on the board (as well as for owning guns). It's taken more effort than I had planned to monitor the thread and sift through the attacks/support. It also doesn't help that the format for these long threads is unique to any board that I've ever visited. I still don't really have a good feel for how to make sure that I see every new post.

[M4tt]

AM strikes me like Job of the Bible. A man in love with Omega, specifically his PO, and in spite of what he has endured, which he never minimized or sugar-coated, is still in love with his PO. That in itself, the loyalty, speaks better to me than any slick webpage from Omega.

Hopefully with no offence to AM, I rather suspect that he will chop in his PO for a Sub when the time is right, His quartz Seamaster I reckon he will hold on to.

As for Job, just call me Elihu. (Funnily enough, it is my favourite book of the Bible by far.)

[M4tt]

It's rather weird as statement, I don't see why you have had a sense of irritation over me, I'm neither agressive nor impolite in my posts.

If I found your assertion not convincing enough it shouldn't be my fault. If I belive your words the problem would always be user-error and it's rather a feature than problem which is difficult to swallow. If it's was a feature why that feature disappears after the watch is repaired ? And why it seems that only the 2500 Co-ax has that feature ?

A defect, even at a small scale remains a defect, that's why a couple of steering, braking or stalling problem in car often results in a worldwide recall of hundred thousands of vehicles, not because we know it will happen again but because we don't know when and in what circumstance it would happen.

I would be grateful to anyone who could explain politely to LVT why I may have found his posts irritating. I'm afraid that if I begin to explain it again I will end up being banned.

[M4tt]

I agree. With all due respect, and I mean it, you're fighting the good fight. We all know it. Neither side nor sides off to the corner have any logical legs to stand on, including your own. You don't offer a facile conclusion, which is wise, because evidence is not there.

Actually, there is a wealth of evidence, it is simply the case that there is no simple evidence. The situation is identical with a number of classic cases in evaluating complex risk. I have quoted MMR and the carcinogenic breast implants scare several times and been ignored. No statistician would take the anecdotal evidence offered here as anything other than evidenc of how bad we are at assessing complex risk.

You love Omega, a wise choice of an emotion that should be seldom given. I can say the same.

Actually I have watch collection that is less than ten percent Omega, I have more Smiths, more Certina, more West End Watch Co and more Seiko than Omega and I prefer JLC, Certina, Girard Perregaux and a few others to Omega. Hell, I much prefer vintage Omega (or even Rolex) to modern stuff. I don't like the Planet Ocean at all and I have avoided the Cal.2500C because I genuinely believe it to be the better instantiation of the coaxial escapement which was changed because people didn't understand the nature of the compromise made for Marine Chronometer stability and were unnerved by a movement that needed a shake to start.
THe reason I defend the Cal2500 is simple - I think it was a brave and wonderful gamble by Omega and it annoys me beyond explanation that the reputation is being undermined in the way that it is by the people that it is. This is less about Omega, this is about a deep dislike of militant ignorance and its malign effect.

AM strikes me like Job of the Bible. A man in love with Omega, specifically his PO, and in spite of what he has endured, which he never minimized or sugar-coated, is still in love with his PO. That in itself, the loyalty, speaks better to me than any slick webpage from Omega.

'Does AM love Omega for nothing? reach out and break his watch and he will curse you to your face...' As I mentioned, I think he's on his way to a Sub, We will see

[M4tt]

Oh bugger it, one last time.

Does a buyer need to know all of that before buying his Co-ax watch ?

No they don't. The movement is robust and reliable and it is only the statistical ignorance of people who have no idea of statistics that give the impression that it isn't. See also: Breast implants give you cancer, MMR injections give you autism and the earth is flat.

Anh thats is a theory that you have to prove, I don't think your theory is convincing to 100% of the readers, why should oil problem affect Co-ax movement more than any other movement ?

Actually that's a theory I now reject utterly because it was an attempt to get to the truth but it merely serves the rhetorical needs of the ignorant. So now that I reject that theory, good luck explaining what is going wrong with the coaxials (apart from appallingly embarrassing statistical ignorance)?

This might be a misinformation, I've seen some videos about the Co-ax's being assembled, there are many stages where human intervention is required, e.g installation of the hairspring, pallet-stones, mainspring, oiling here and there...

Yean, sure, and it takes a year to make a Rolex too, One of the reasons that Omega don't use the technically superior Breguet Overcoil is because a flat spring can be fitted by a machine.

The 2500 is derived from the ETA 2892, the 2892 is base movement for many high-end and customized movements with additonal complications like power reserve, big-date, moonphase, chronograph... in other words the 2892 is designed to be versatile and reliable, I don't see why we would need to talk about the gearing to prove the sufficient torque that a mechanical movement should be able to deliver. Except the escapement being Co-axial, the rest of the movement should be similar on a technical aspect if not superior, right ?

It is the torque at the pinion of the coaxial wheel that I am asking about (and you are failing to answer my question entirely) Either way, I now reject any oiling argument and so it is rendered irrelevant.

You transformed my simple argument into a "cloudy" philosophical expression that completely hides it from the true meaning.

It was a reductio, one of the premises was false and thus the conclusion was, as a logical necessity, unproven.

I mean that if the over-oiling has such a heavy consequence on a mechanical movement we should see a widely spread problem with mass produced movements like Rolex or Seike and of course ETA's.

No, I explained why that argument was nonsense some days ago. Go back and look again rather than simply repeating the same assertion.

Do you mean if my car can't start if parked on a hill road it's a feature of the design so that it will be more stable on highway ?

No, you are I assume, quite deliberately equivocating upon the word 'stable'.

An automatic movement that can't self-start from all positions or self-tops at certain position isn't a good movement, even if it only happen to a few of samples and under certain conditions.

I didn't say it self stops I said it, in common with most movements apart from the lever and pinwheel, cannot self start. However, why is needing to give a movement a shake to start it a big deal, when the upside is stability on a par with a quartz?

I didn't say about manufacturing process, I said about quality control (QC).

Fair enough.

I believe it's not difficult to "spill" the oil on the movement while sparing the hairspring.

I quite agree, but if you read what I wrote you will see I was asserting that it was the running after the spillage that was the issue. That's how I knew you were talking nonsense and why I challenged you on it. A watch with oil spilled on the hairspring simply cannot run as you describe it.

[Sean779]

Insult a guy who's sticking up for you. Stay classy.

I do take some blame for the misunderstanding because that sentence I wrote was pretty confusing: it even took me, the author, a couple readings to unscramble what I thought I knew I was saying.

[Sean779]

Either way, I now reject any oiling argument and so it is rendered irrelevant.

slam of gavel and God says "Next!"

[ljb187]

Even taking Thetoad’s posts into account this is the weirdest thread I've ever read on WUS - and he's doing it intentionally.

[anonymousmoose]

Can't we all just get along and agree that there are known issues with the 2500 movement yet no one but Omega is certain how wide-spread?

The reason I am saying there are issues is because, lets face it, there are quite a few reports on this forum alone.

The reason I'm saying only Omega is certain how wide-spread is in agreement with Matt's assessment of there being hundreds of thousands of Planet Oceans and the forum is only a drop in the ocean of PO owners.

[ljb187]

Can't we all just get along and agree that there are known issues with the 2500 movement...the reason I am saying there are issues is because, lets face it, there are quite a few reports on this forum alone.

Not to add kindling to the fire, but hasn't Matt (or someone else) suggested that WUS has the only Omega forum which reports this issue in a sufficient enough numbers to suggest there’s a problem with the movement? If so then that’s very odd (even if this is the largest Omega forum). If my recollection is incorrect - and it may be - then I'll just shut up...

...but not before saying this again! Has anybody ever contacted Nesbit's or any of the other trusted repair shops that used to do Omega warranty work to see if their experience supports one school of thought or the other? I would think the volume of work they did could at least give them a somewhat greater than a small sample size perspective the matter. As things stand, lack of centralized verification and no possibility of Omega offering up any data makes this a bit of a tail chasing exercise. Not a pointless exercise mind you, there's a lot of interesting theory being bandied about along with a bit humor and no shortage of rubberneck inducing controversy, but it is one that is missing something baseball fans refer to as “statistics”.