IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does this mean? - Page 11
Like Tree179Likes

Thread: IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does this mean?

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 144
  1. #101
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,102

    Re: IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does this mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dimman View Post
    I found that one, but there is nothing definitive there. From what Lysander says there are points that could potentially use some extra jewels in the 2892 winding system, but they looked difficult to implement, and he could only speculate not having torn an SW300 down.

    Was hoping for maybe fresh info.


    And why is it no one mentions that Rolex shock-protects their escape wheel? The Kif-sprung cap jewels there would also improve positional accuracy I think...
    Comparing the tech guide for the 2892A2 and the SW300, it seems that the SW300 uses jewels instead of bushings on the main plate and barrel bridge where the barrel arbor rides, so there are 2 more than the 2892. Note that Omega also uses jewels on the Cal. 1120 and family in these locations.

    Contrary to popular belief, many parts between the equivalent ETA and Sellita movements are not compatible and can't be interchanged, so in this case the SW300 implement the intermediate reduction wheel in the automatic very differently from the 2892, which means 2 jewels are added there (one in the barrel bridge and one in the automatic device bridge).

    So those two areas account for the additional 4 jewels. It seems they also put a jewel on the main plate for the date indicator driving wheel - something that turns once every 24 hours with virtually no load most of the time, and minimal loads during the date change. I've never seen one of those wear out, so possibly this is why they don't bother to count that and make it 26 jewels...

    Having serviced a ton of 2892's, it's rare that they need any bushings replaced in my experience.

    Oh and the escape wheel is not really shock protected on a Rolex movement - that is not the function of the cap jewel and retaining system being used there. Using a capped jewel on a train wheel is not about protecting it from shock (they are so small in mass that they don't typically break when exposed to shocks) but a way of reducing friction as the conical pivot rides on the tip rather than on a larger surface area with a typical square shouldered pivot.

    Cheers, Al

  2. #102
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Gathering Place
    Posts
    14,342

    Re: IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does this mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by bbuckbbuck View Post
    What's a threat without pics? Tried this on yesterday at the IWC boutique in NYC.

















    Oh boy, I was trying to avoid seeing more pics of this one, sigh . . .
    bbuckbbuck likes this.
    A.Lange & Sohne *anOrdain * Audemars Piguet * Blancpain * Cartier * Dornblueth & Sohne * Invicta * International Watch Company * Jaeger-LeCoultre * Méraud * Rolex * Revolution Watch Company * Tiffany & Company

    "the deeper the roots, the higher the reach" - author unknown

    Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself. - Rumi

  3. #103
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    7,109

    IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does th...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dimman View Post
    I found that one, but there is nothing definitive there. From what Lysander says there are points that could potentially use some extra jewels in the 2892 winding system, but they looked difficult to implement, and he could only speculate not having torn an SW300 down.

    Was hoping for maybe fresh info.


    And why is it no one mentions that Rolex shock-protects their escape wheel? The Kif-sprung cap jewels there would also improve positional accuracy I think...
    Cap jewels on the escape wheel have been done in quality movements at various times, but not as consistently as one might think. Here's a tiny Universal Genéve caliber 800 from the mid-60's that has cap jewels on the escape wheel:



    This was in an elegant little two-hand dress watch that was priced at $95 in 1965 or so. (UG was highly respected and distributed by the Stern Agency as the affordable alternative to Patek Philippe.)

    But that is not shock protection, which is not needed for the ultralight escape wheel in the way it is for the heavy balance. It's just a clip to hold the cap jewel.

    Rolex makes sturdy, robust movements, and for their thickness, they should be sturdy and robust. The 2892 is much thinner, and more elegant, but they don't really suffer from unreliability, and they have benefitted from the refinements that come from such high production levels.

    I want to see if Rolex movements take advantage of their extra features and deliver greater accuracy, if we are to take on faith that COSC is too low a floor for comparison.

    I have watches powered by chronometer-grade 2892's that are truly excellent in that regard. Only my best watches can survive my own 10-day wear test with a variance (from the mean regulated accuracy, and thus a measure of adjustment rather that regulation) inside +/- 1.0 s/d. My chronometer-grade 2892 watches all do, and are on a par with my chronometer-certified Zenith movements, which are renowned for accuracy. They are better than my top-grade 2892's (which generally fit inside a +/- 2 s/d envelope), which still meet COSC expectations. Can Rolex better that? I expect they are as good, and it's impressive that they achieve such accuracy across the hundreds of thousands of movements they make. Maybe their construction method is part of their path to that accuracy, while ETA took a different approach. But despite those nice features, the best 2892 models get the results that Rolex claims is the justification for those features.

    I do see reports of Rolex rotors developing enough play to rub the movement, as a result of their central pin design, rather than using ball bearings. Perhaps those are also outliers.

    I've said this before: if the 2892 was a respected brand's (like, say, IWC) exclusive in-house movement, it would be revered as one of the great automatics of all time. But it might not have benefitted from the same refinement.

    Rick "prepared to edit all this after reading Archer's post--nope, I got it right" Denney
    Last edited by Rdenney; December 16th, 2015 at 20:24.
    Zenith: Captain Chronograph 03.2110.400*; Cartier: Santos 100 XL Concord: Mariner, C1 Big-Date, C1 v.2 Chronograph; Ebel: Chronosport 1134901, Tekton 9137L83*, Type E 9137C41* (*=COSC)
    Ebel: 1911 BTR 9137L73* and 9139L71*, 1911 1120L41*, 1911 Senior 9080241, Brasilias 9120M41 (2), Aquatica 500 9120K61, Classic Hexagon GMT 9301F61, Classic 100 LE 9120R41; Baume & Mercier: Capeland World-Timer
    Heuer: Carrera 1964 Re-Edition CS3110; Maurice Lacroix: Masterpiece MP6439; "Seagull": 1963 Reissue cal. ST19; Seiko: Black Monster SRP307; Poljot: Sturmanskie cal. 3133; Tissot: T-Touch Lew and Huey: Acciona
    Vintage: JLC: ref. 2953, ca. 1946; Longines: Flagship cal 285; Zodiac: SST cal. 86, Aerospace GMT cal. 72; Favre-Leuba: cal. 253; Tianjin: Dong Feng cal. ST5; Elgin: Gr. 152 (1898), Gr. 384 (1919); Ebel: ca. 1962 ref. 9214955
    WUS: ST5 Project Watches (Black and Blue), F72.2014.DG3804 (Gray and Cream); Swatch: Sistem 51 Blue; TNT: Rattrapante cal. Rochat 7750+RAT-1

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Greater Vancouver (New West)
    Posts
    2,198

    Re: IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does th...

    Quote Originally Posted by Archer View Post
    Comparing the tech guide for the 2892A2 and the SW300, it seems that the SW300 uses jewels instead of bushings on the main plate and barrel bridge where the barrel arbor rides, so there are 2 more than the 2892. Note that Omega also uses jewels on the Cal. 1120 and family in these locations.

    Contrary to popular belief, many parts between the equivalent ETA and Sellita movements are not compatible and can't be interchanged, so in this case the SW300 implement the intermediate reduction wheel in the automatic very differently from the 2892, which means 2 jewels are added there (one in the barrel bridge and one in the automatic device bridge).

    So those two areas account for the additional 4 jewels. It seems they also put a jewel on the main plate for the date indicator driving wheel - something that turns once every 24 hours with virtually no load most of the time, and minimal loads during the date change. I've never seen one of those wear out, so possibly this is why they don't bother to count that and make it 26 jewels...

    Having serviced a ton of 2892's, it's rare that they need any bushings replaced in my experience.

    Oh and the escape wheel is not really shock protected on a Rolex movement - that is not the function of the cap jewel and retaining system being used there. Using a capped jewel on a train wheel is not about protecting it from shock (they are so small in mass that they don't typically break when exposed to shocks) but a way of reducing friction as the conical pivot rides on the tip rather than on a larger surface area with a typical square shouldered pivot.

    Cheers, Al
    Quote Originally Posted by Rdenney View Post
    Cap jewels on the escape wheel have been done in quality movements at various times, but not as consistently as one might think. Here's a tiny Universal Genéve caliber 800 from the mid-60's that has cap jewels on the escape wheel:



    This was in an elegant little two-hand dress watch that was priced at $95 in 1965 or so. (UG was highly respected and distributed by the Stern Agency as the affordable alternative to Patek Philippe.)

    But that is not shock protection, which is not needed for the ultralight escape wheel in the way it is for the heavy balance. It's just a clip to hold the cap jewel.

    Rolex makes sturdy, robust movements, and for their thickness, they should be sturdy and robust. The 2892 is much thinner, and more elegant, but they don't really suffer from unreliability, and they have benefitted from the refinements that come from such high production levels.

    I want to see if Rolex movements take advantage of their extra features and deliver greater accuracy, if we are to take on faith that COSC is too low a floor for comparison.

    I have watches powered by chronometer-grade 2892's that are truly excellent in that regard. Only my best watches can survive my own 10-day wear test with a variance (from the mean regulated accuracy, and thus a measure of adjustment rather that regulation) inside +/- 1.0 s/d. My chronometer-grade 2892 watches all do, and are on a par with my chronometer-certified Zenith movements, which are renowned for accuracy. They are better than my top-grade 2892's (which generally fit inside a +/- 2 s/d envelope), which still meet COSC expectations. Can Rolex better that? I expect they are as good, and it's impressive that they achieve such accuracy across the hundreds of thousands of movements they make. Maybe their construction method is part of their path to that accuracy, while ETA took a different approach. But despite those nice features, the best 2892 models get the results that Rolex claims is the justification for those features.

    I do see reports of Rolex rotors developing enough play to rub the movement, as a result of their central pin design, rather than using ball bearings. Perhaps those are also outliers.

    I've said this before: if the 2892 was a respected brand's (like, say, IWC) exclusive in-house movement, it would be revered as one of the great automatics of all time. But it might not have benefitted from the same refinement.

    Rick "prepared to edit all this after reading Archer's post--nope, I got it right" Denney
    Thanks guys.

    I have a 21 Jewel Lord Elgin with cap jewels, but no anti-shock (but not even the balance), I've seen other movements with caps, but usually in a fitting with a screw on the side. I first noticed anti-shock style springs on a later Swiss Ball RR pocket watch. It had Incabloc on the balance plus the 3 sided springs (Novodiac?) capping the escape wheel and lever, whereas the US RR pocket watches were unsprung cap jewels. If it's not for shock protection, is it for ease of assembly? The spring allows for minor depth variations when installed so less chance of damage when putting it together?
    Seasow likes this.

  6. #105
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,102

    Re: IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does th...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dimman View Post
    Thanks guys.

    I have a 21 Jewel Lord Elgin with cap jewels, but no anti-shock (but not even the balance), I've seen other movements with caps, but usually in a fitting with a screw on the side. I first noticed anti-shock style springs on a later Swiss Ball RR pocket watch. It had Incabloc on the balance plus the 3 sided springs (Novodiac?) capping the escape wheel and lever, whereas the US RR pocket watches were unsprung cap jewels. If it's not for shock protection, is it for ease of assembly? The spring allows for minor depth variations when installed so less chance of damage when putting it together?

    I have worked on watches with fixed cap jewels on the escape wheel that could not even be disassembled, others with screwed in place cap jewels, and then those with a system that resembles the shock protection on the balance. They all serve the same purpose for the functioning of the watch - less friction with conical pivots. The type that appear to be shock settings are just made that way for ease of disassembly, cleaning, and oiling.

    Cheers, Al
    181903 and Seasow like this.

  7. #106
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,102

    Re: IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does th...

    Rick - I'm sure you know that every movement design is a series of compromises, and every movement has a weak spot. Both the 2892 and various Rolex movements like the 3135 are no different in that regard.

    For a manufacturer, ideally you want the weak spot not to be so weak that it fails within what you plan as your normal service interval. Most movements are successful at that, but they all will have parts that will fail eventually.

    You mention the axle on the Rolex style rotor - Omega used a similar design in the past (55X, 56X, and 75X movements in particular) but instead of the steel axle on the rotor running in a hard jewel as Rolex does (so the axle wears), they have a fixed steel axle in the automatic bridge with a bronze bushing in the rotor. That bushing is much easier to replace than a Rolex axle in the rotor is. Both have a part that wears and needs replacing on a regular basis, but as a watchmaker I much prefer the Omega one because the new bushing (pinion actually) costs $17 and takes me about 2 minutes to install and fit, with almost zero chance of damaging the rotor. The Rolex axle is riveted to the rotor, so it has to have the rivet broken out in a staking set, and then if the hole has not gotten too large or worn out of round, a new axle riveted in place. More money and more time involved, plus greater risk that you have to spend serious money on a whole new rotor.

    And, if not properly staked, the axle can come loose in the rotor at the rivet, and this can cause a whole host of problems. Here is an example where I caught it in time and was able to save the axle and rotor...

    https://youtu.be/MrGgwOTR9Dc

    Sometimes if this is let go, the axle wears the hole in the rotor so large that a new axle can't be staked in, so the whole unit has to be replaced.

    In contrast to both the older Omega and current Rolex methods of supporting the rotor, the 2892 uses a ball bearing. But of course that bearing wears out, and I replace them often. One of the first things I do when servicing a modern Omega with a 2892 based movement (1120, 2500) is check the inner anti-magnetic cover for this wear ring:



    Then I look at the rotor itself:



    Sure sign the bearing is gone, and a quick check of how the rotor flops around confirms it. Again the bearing is easily changed in most of these - use a special tool to remove the locking ring and the bearing falls out. Put a new one in and put the locking ring back and you are done.

    It's common here for people to refer to "performance" in only timekeeping terms, but of course wear and longevity are as important.

    Cheers, Al

  8. #107
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,254

    Re: IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does th...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rdenney View Post

    I've said this before: if the 2892 was a respected brand's (like, say, IWC) exclusive in-house movement, it would be revered as one of the great automatics of all time. But it might not have benefitted from the same refinement.

    Thank you, Rick "you just convinced me to pull the trigger on the Ingenieur" Denny

  9. #108
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,254

    Re: IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does th...

    Quote Originally Posted by Archer View Post

    It's common here for people to refer to "performance" in only timekeeping terms, but of course wear and longevity are as important.

    Cheers, Al
    I agree. I think in terms of priority on a movement, this is how I would rank the criteria, things I prefer in a movement:

    1) Longevity and durability
    2) Ease of service (parts availability and watchmaker competency)
    3) Timekeeping accuracy
    4) In-house

    Al, I'm wondering how you would rank the Selitta S300 on these criteria, compared to, say, the Rolex 3135. Obviously the latter ticks box 4, and (in my experience) box 3; but what about comparing the S300 to the 3135 with regard to durability and ease of service. I think many people would think the 3135 is super durable, and easier-ish to service. But in your experience, how does the SW300 stack up? Thank you so much for all your insight. Let me know if my question is too simplistic (I think it might be).
    Seasow likes this.

  10. #109
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    7,109

    Re: IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does th...

    Quote Originally Posted by bbuckbbuck View Post
    I agree. I think in terms of priority on a movement, this is how I would rank the criteria, things I prefer in a movement:

    1) Longevity and durability
    2) Ease of service (parts availability and watchmaker competency)
    3) Timekeeping accuracy
    4) In-house

    Al, I'm wondering how you would rank the Selitta S300 on these criteria, compared to, say, the Rolex 3135. Obviously the latter ticks box 4, and (in my experience) box 3; but what about comparing the S300 to the 3135 with regard to durability and ease of service. I think many people would think the 3135 is super durable, and easier-ish to service. But in your experience, how does the SW300 stack up? Thank you so much for all your insight. Let me know if my question is too simplistic (I think it might be).
    I'm not really willing to give up that much, so I don't have a priority list. And it depends on the watch--some watches I buy for reasons less related to the movement than others.

    The SW300 and 2892 benefit from a highly refined design and commonly available parts. As we have heard, not all the parts are interchangeable between these two, but Sellita was buying major parts from ETA as recently as the last year or two based on an interview I read, and I suspect they are not yet all the way to their goal of being independent of ETA completely. Also, the rather large ball bearing for the rotor of these movements (which was a modification made by Omega for the 1120 that Archer picture--they reduced the size of the bearing to increase winding efficiency) must wear more than a smaller bearing to cause the same amount of looseness. But those bearings are easy to get and replace during service, as we have seen.

    The 3135 should be more durable--it is much thicker movement and should have thicker plates and bearing surfaces for large bearings such as on the barrel. But I'm not sure either one is a problem in that regard. I read an article about servicing a Rolex movement that had not been serviced in a couple of decades, and one of the fixed studs on the plate was worn nearly halfway through. I'm sure similar things can happen to the 2892/SW300 if left unserviced, but the point is that both require routine service to avoid such issues, and both are used in watches that are worth enough to maintain properly. Those who ignore such service will eventually pay the price, no matter what the movement.

    Back to what makes the movement accurate. Rolex uses a Breguet overcoil, which was once quite common on decent watches, even 7-jewel American pocket watches that a century ago sold for under $10. The idea is to maintain concentricity as the spring breathes, so that it's behavior at lower amplitudes is similar to its behavior at higher amplitudes. This improves loss of isochronism, though with an automatic that is worn routinely, isochronism isn't much of an issue because the watch stays mostly wound. And Rolex uses a free-sprung balance, which means that the hairspring does not go through a pair of regulator pins. To regulate a movement with a free-sprung balance, one must alter the perimeter weight of the balance to change its moment of inertia (and therefore its oscillation frequency). Rolex uses tiny nuts that are threaded to the inside of the balance rim. The Rolex (like the ETA) has a mobile stud carrier so that it is easy to adjust the beat. If properly adjusted in the first place, there is probably little to be done to adjust for positions on servicing, and that applies to movements with an adjustable regulator, too. Adjustments when there is a regulator may involve tweaking those regulator pins to alter how the spring is retained by them in different positions, but on a free-spring movement, that is handled by remounting the spring in the mounting stud. There are four perimeter weights, and each one is turned slightly to change the regulation. They call this their Microstella system. I do not know to what extent changing the rate introduces the risk of upsetting the poise of the balance, but I would think the risk is at least nonzero, so regulating will also require checking balance poise--checking the timing of the vertical positions might be good enough.

    Here is an unbiased internal look at the 3135. In this article, he praises the design and serviceability of the reversing wheels on the autowinder, complains about the pin-mounted rotor (which on this watch had worn sufficiently that the loose rotor had damaged the movement), praises the design and adjustment of the balance bridge, and so on. He suggests that Rolex is generally slow to update their designs, which he believes is an outcome of using an in-house design. He explains why the movement is still so thick. The article is a few years old, but I suspect little has changed except for the transition to in-house Parachrom springs. He notes that the wear on the central rotor pin, which spread debris all around the movement, occurred during seven years since the previous service, which is, to me, a bit worrisome and also counter to Rolex's reputation for indestructibility even with minimal servicing. Some things he claims are better than what ETA does, and some are not as good.

    It may be that Rolex's use of the weight-adjusted balance for regulation makes it easier for them, with their manufacturing process, to make the better part of a million movements a year that all pass COSC testing, with a high success rate. Though ETA and Sellita together must make that many 2892 movements, only a small percentage of them will be adjusted to meet COSC requirements, or even to meet their (similar) top-grade adjustment requirements. Thus, for them, it might be cheaper to rely on traditional hand adjustment instead of trying to design and manufacture their way out of that requirement.

    I own some 2892 watches that have needed service in as little as four years from manufacture date, and others that continue to work with no signs of internal debris after a decade since they were made. Those need to go in for service, absolutely. But it tells me that, in terms of durability, the 2892 does pretty darn well, and certainly it is in the same league as Rolex in that dimension. My Lemania movements are in the same league, maybe finished a bit better than Rolex or ETA.

    So, in your first category, they are different but probably about equal. In the second, the ETA might have the edge, though both are pretty good in that regard. For 3, the two companies take a different path, but both seem to get to the same finish line when (in the case of ETA) they claim to.

    In terms of finishing, which wasn't on your list, Rolex may be a bit better, though ETA/Sellita are quite nice in their highest grades, especially when further enhanced by the watch company or a third-party ebauche finisher (such as La Joux Perret or IWC, though it's possible that the movement suppliers do the work to IWC's requirements). We should recall that Sellita did a lot of ETA's high-grade finishing, under contract to ETA, and did so for many, many years. (Sellita has been in business since the 50's.)

    Finally, the date change, which has been mentioned a couple of times. Here, the Rolex movements are superior to the ETA movements. The ETA movements still have an instantaneous date change, but you will see a bit of nudging of the date wheel after 10PM. But, according to this article (Part two of the article on Chronometrie that has been mentioned before), the mechanism on the ETA is also impervious to damage if the time is set during the late evening.

    I do not reject a watch because it has a 2892, and some of my more expensive watches are based on that movement, without regrets from my quarter.

    Rick "a great movement is a great movement, no matter who makes it" Denney
    Zenith: Captain Chronograph 03.2110.400*; Cartier: Santos 100 XL Concord: Mariner, C1 Big-Date, C1 v.2 Chronograph; Ebel: Chronosport 1134901, Tekton 9137L83*, Type E 9137C41* (*=COSC)
    Ebel: 1911 BTR 9137L73* and 9139L71*, 1911 1120L41*, 1911 Senior 9080241, Brasilias 9120M41 (2), Aquatica 500 9120K61, Classic Hexagon GMT 9301F61, Classic 100 LE 9120R41; Baume & Mercier: Capeland World-Timer
    Heuer: Carrera 1964 Re-Edition CS3110; Maurice Lacroix: Masterpiece MP6439; "Seagull": 1963 Reissue cal. ST19; Seiko: Black Monster SRP307; Poljot: Sturmanskie cal. 3133; Tissot: T-Touch Lew and Huey: Acciona
    Vintage: JLC: ref. 2953, ca. 1946; Longines: Flagship cal 285; Zodiac: SST cal. 86, Aerospace GMT cal. 72; Favre-Leuba: cal. 253; Tianjin: Dong Feng cal. ST5; Elgin: Gr. 152 (1898), Gr. 384 (1919); Ebel: ca. 1962 ref. 9214955
    WUS: ST5 Project Watches (Black and Blue), F72.2014.DG3804 (Gray and Cream); Swatch: Sistem 51 Blue; TNT: Rattrapante cal. Rochat 7750+RAT-1

  11. #110
    Member GregoryD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,646

    Re: IWC Ingenieur contains a modified ETA 2892 with a Sellita base?? What does this mean?

    Does anyone know exactly what changes are made to the SW/ETA by IWC, or on behalf of IWC? I don't doubt that there are improvements, but I have yet to see a specific list or comparison photos, and I've never heard of IWC confirming anything.
    Cheers,
    Greg



Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 38
      Last Post: July 31st, 2014, 00:10
    2. Cheapest watch with Sellita SW300 or ETA 2892 ??
      By GGN in forum Affordable watches
      Replies: 8
      Last Post: July 12th, 2012, 01:57
    3. BR02 movement: ETA 2892 or Sellita 200?
      By y_teja in forum Bell & Ross
      Replies: 5
      Last Post: December 4th, 2011, 22:40
    4. Aviator Compressor - Big Date & 2nd Time Zone - ETA 2892-A2 Base
      By Tempvs Ex Machina in forum Watch Concepts & Designs
      Replies: 2
      Last Post: February 24th, 2011, 13:45
    5. ETA 2892/A2 vs 2824/Sellita 200
      By esantelli in forum Dive watches
      Replies: 10
      Last Post: August 24th, 2007, 02:24

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •