|
70s chronograph technical question Posted By: Tom M. Date: 1/4/08 23:24 GMT
Hi Tom! Good to see you!
(WARNING--Omega-bashing content)
Eh, [rolls up sleeves] I'm easy...
Just want to get an evaluation of this statement re: 1970s chronograph movements from a source that will remain anonymous:
S/He may remain anonymous, but I have a good idea for a couple of canidates!
"Do you want to get technical on the 1970s Omega movements--let me know.
Incidentally, Lemania made all chronograph movements for Omega in the 1970's save for the LCD Quartz and Speedsonic movements. Calling them "Omega movements" is really an uninformed newbie type mistake, but we'll humor the bloke.
For starters, one should look at the [chronograph] function caliber parts. The re-setting strikers are poorly designed, as well as the use of brass bushing instead of jewels at critical pressure points.
[Snicker] One really shouldn't seek out to engage a Lemania chronograph vs. a Valjoux chronograph in the 1970's on their levers... Especially the Valjoux 72 Vs. either the Lemania c.2310/2320 [Omega c.321] or the Lemania c.x873 [Omega c.861].
A paragraph [or two] in the spirit of full disclosure: I don't own a "Rolex Rolex"... I own a pair of Tudor Oysterdate Chronographs [Valjoux 7750 based]:
... So I own Rolex product, but many Rolexphiles might argue I am not a Rolex owner [like I care...]. I own a lot of Omega's [a lot of Heuer's, Longines, Tissot, Porsche Design, Gallet, etc. too]. I don't keep tallys of how many watches of each brand I own, nor do I keep tallys on movement types either. I own more than a handful of: Lemania c.2310/2320's, c.x873's, and Valjoux 72 family movements.... In fact I might own more Valjoux 72's than I do the Lemania manual wind models [which seems to be the brunt of Anonymous's rant]. But not a Rolex based v.72.
Personally I prefer the Lemania based Omega c.321 over the Valjoux 72 series myself... Here I'll use previously posted group of photos to illustrate one of the reasons why...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Above Left, we have an (unaltered) Valjoux 72 picture
Immediate Left, the c.321.
Above Right: is an animation of the Valjoux 72 showing two of several levers in the Valjoux 72 that are considerably thiner and more delicate than similar levers that Lemania use in the c.321, [and the c.x87x series uses similarly BEEFY levers]. While I personally have never experienced a failure of one of these parts, they look exceedinly delicate/fragile to me and the Lemania seems to be much beefier by means of comparision... | |
Many Omegaphiles will trumpet 'the Moonwatch passed all of the NASA tests! while the Valjoux 72 failed'. Well, yeah, sort of. If a critical thinker looks at why the Longines and Rolex failed (warped hands and a crystal falling off of the watch) it's really hard to blame the movement for those problems. We really don't know if the v.72 would have held up if they hadn't experienced those non-movement related issues.
I also like the looks and the gilt plating of of the c.321 better, that's a personal opinion, but what the hey... I'm talking about my personal preferences... Everone is entitled to their own preferences, but more importantly everony is entitled to hold [and adopt] my opinion! ;-) I have my preferences... But in my experience [and I have considerable day to day experience with both 1960-1970's Lemania and Valjoux chronographs] they both perform comparably... I haven't done any statistical or scientific analysis of their accuracy or service needs but I haven't seen anything to point to one firm or the other's as being demonstrably better.
As you tear down the caliber you will be shocked to find plastic and gap-filling inserts nestled away.
Will you find composite parts in the Lemania 5100? Yes, and it's not shocking, or at least it shouldn't be by this time. The Lemania 5100 was specifically made with synthetic parts specifically because they were better suited for the task than metal parts. Same thing with the Delrin® brake in the Omega c.861 [Lemania 2310] movement of this epoch. The plain and simple fact is the Delrin® part does a better job than a metal one.
Please tear down any 1970s Omega chronograph movement and you will see how cheaply they are made.
Do we really need to include a link to olé Walt Odets article to illustrate the finish of Rolex products?
The 727 and 234 Valjoux looks like a [Patek] movement compared to the 1970s Omega chronograph calibers.
The Valjoux 72 looks like a fragile and delicate mechanism compared to the rugged reliable c.321 or c.861 of the 1960's and 1970's.
Do not get me started on the balance and hairspring quality on the Omega caliber."
It'd probably change far fewer minds than getting me started on a comprehensive comparative value of a Daytona Vs. a Speedmaster. In the end it's a personal value judgement.
What it all boils down to is that everone wants to feel strongly justified in the purchase decision[s] they have made. Many people feel the only way they can feel good about their choices is to tear down the choice they eschew. The fact is both Omega and Rolex made exceedingly good products in this epoch, they were strong competitiors and rivals...
About Rivals and Rivalry...
Additionally, a lot of people are in hte habit of looking back at historical events and plying up rivalries or conflicts to "spice up the story". It's not all that different than comparing A.J. Foyt and Mario Andretti... AJ is the only man to have won the Indy 500, Daytona 500 and the 24 Hours of LeMans. Mario isthe only man to have won the Indy 500, Daytona 500 and the F1 Championship [this may change soon with the influx of Indy/F1 drivers to NASCAR though]. AJ and Mario competed often and were more than a match for each other. Neither of them were slouches or demonstratably superior to the other. At any race they both competed in either one could rule the day.
The same thing applies to Rolex and Omega or Heuer and Omega during this epoch... There is a clip from the Steve McQueen film LeMans which explains well how I feel about these brands in this epoch:
The key words spoken here are said by the Erich Stahler character [Seigfried Rauch]:
"He's fast, I'm fast, so we're always together!"
And so it is with: Omega and Rolex, Omega and Heuer, etc. They are always competing with similar watches for the same customer's money. So as a result, they are rivals, great rivals. As a result I expect there to be rivalry between Omega owners and Rolex owners, Heuer owners and Omega owners. I expect there to be PASSION for I expect people to be passionate about things that are important to them. And I expect such passion to be expressed and displayed in watch enthusiast forums.
When it comes down to the summation, One can have and express one's opinions and make their own choices. But the most part the products of these firms were competitive with one another and made comparable products.
What is the consensus on this analysis--sound or BS?
While there are tiny little glints of facts in there: yes there were synthetic parts used when appropriate in movements that Omega shipped in the 1970's. However for the most part this bloke is basically a "Rolex Apple Polisher". Most of his prose is off-base at best, and flatly wrong in most instances. I'll close with one notably glaring passage:
“The re-setting strikers are poorly designed, as well as the use of brass bushing instead of jewels at critical pressure points.”
How many jewels are there in a Valjoux 72 [and in a Rolex v.727]? 17. How many Jewels in an Omega c.321? 17. Omega c.861? 17 [in the 1970's, more recent models have 18]. How many in the c.1045 [Lemania 5100]? 17. How many in the c.1040/1041 [Lemania 1342]? 22. If the Rolex used Jewels at these critical pressure points why isn't their jewel count higher?
I respect the Valjoux 72 family of movements. I respect the Rolex Daytona [and Pre-Daytona] too. I like them, but I personally would rather have a half a dozen Omega's or Heuer's [or Porsche Design, or Gallet, or ...] than a single Daytona or Pre-Daytona. I'm comfortable with my choice, and I don't feel I have to run down the choice I didn't take either.
TIA & HAGWE,
Hope this is helpful...
Tom | 
