Omega

Marcus Hanke
[PuristSPro Moderator]
11296

• Show profile
• Show other posts

De mortuis ....

... nihil nisi bene. I will not comment on Chuck Maddox' articles, nor speculate on his motivation behind writing them. However, your choice of words strongly suggests that your problems with the cal. 33xx are rather problems with the owner family and her activities, and go far beyond any technical issues. Above all, your statements are contradictory: what should the manufacturing procedure of certain parts or the fact whether an automatic winding is bi- or unidirectional have to do with a movement's ruggedness? The Valjoux 7750 and the Lémania 5100 are both generally considered the most proven and rugged automatic chronograph movements in the world, and yet both of them feature unidirectional winding are are nearly completely made from stamped parts.

Regarding your critical mentioning of stamped parts: apparently you have never seen how the other movements you were mentioning are produced. To stamp parts is a standard procedure that is used for several parts throughout the industry, without exception. Today, spark erosion machines increasingly replace the stamping machines, since they are faster and the production cost per part is lower.

The number of versions within a given time is not an indication of fundamental flaws, rather of teething problems that can be overcome. The Valjoux 7750 has seen at least three iterations, before it became the reliable movement we all know, the ETA 2824-2, 2892A2 and 2894-2, movements successfully used in hundreds of thousands of watches worldwide and since decades, even needed at least one major reconstruction before they became the workhorses they are today. Just compare GO's renown cal. 39 movement of today with one produced fifteen years ago, and you will notice that barely a screw is really compatible between them. The same is valid for movements from JLC, AP (do I hear 3120?), and all others.

Regards,
Marcus