WatchProSite|Market|Digest

Omega

To be honest Thomas,

 

I find it very difficult to comprehense the technical nomenclature. With the 18j. movement on the table, it was pointed out to me in French but at the same time virtually impossible to grasp in my mother-language, let alone reproduce here in English. Maybe somebody in our circle could shine a laserpointer?

An observation: although higher numbers of 'stones' (rubis) could be ordered already from the moment of introduction (1941 for SC T2 version), estimated more than 99½% were delivered in standard 16 jewel lay-out. With this as reference, a potential client for 18j. was to gain not one but two extra stone-bearings. Although theoretically possible, SC versions with 17j. from this period are as yet unheard off -> if making extra costs better to go 'all the way' than 'half-hearted' most probably. Only with the appearance of caliber 280 in 1948 did the standard number go up from 16 to 17j.

Could it considered to be an 'overkill' to equip this movement with eighteen stones? - not easy to say. Fact is that even in the Rg-chronometer movements and later calibers up to and including the 286, Omega did never go beyond a number of 17 (motto: "enough is enough"?). And Marco Richon even doesn't mention the fact when showing illustrations of Anti Magnetic 30mm's in his books. Practical value or not - collectors will cherish these beautiful movements, with an added bonus because of their scarcity.

regards, Ben.

 

  login to reply