New Video Series Uploaded - Omega Co-Axial Service

[Mark]

Just uploaded a new four part series on the Omega Seamaster Co-Axial (with a 2500 movement).

 

This is about 1 hour long so I have split it into four parts.

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwP8fNxqhOvPfgwFF1qHaERl5DuZ-zXqA

[dbals]

On a roll!   Love your videos!

 

 

Thank you for your time and effort to share with the us,

Dan B.

[Geo]

Thanks again Mark, I'll watch that when my other half is watching Corination Street!

As a matter of curiosity, how long does it take yo to put together an hour of video?

[Mark]

On a roll!   Love your videos!

 

 

Thank you for your time and effort to share with the us,

Dan B.

 

Cheers Dan

 

Thanks again Mark, I'll watch that when my other half is watching Corination Street!

As a matter of curiosity, how long does it take yo to put together an hour of video?

 

Never timed myself but maybe 8 hours including the filming.

[Geo]

I thought it would be quite a few hours, you deserve an even bigger thank you for fitting that time around your other commitments.

[Mark]

I do it mainly in the evenings - quite relaxing really! Better than watching TV although I did enjoy the Walking Dead season premier yesterday :)

[Ray]

Looking forward to watching this, thanks

[WillFly]

Yummy!

[bobm12]

Excellent choice of movement Mark, I've just watched the first part -- have to take it little by little -- and it confirms what I've heard before: very detailed and "delicate" movement to work on.

 

I appreciate it not only because of the teachings involved but also because of your dedication and time! Thank you very much for another watchmaker video jewel!

[Geo]

I have just finished watching the videos and found it very informative. I'm a bit confused and it has raised a question. I thought George Daniels designed the co-axial escapement to run without lubrication, why then does Omega recommend lubricating it? To me it seems like an unnecessary complication that does not give a time keeping advantage over conventional escapements.

What is your take on it Mark? I'd also like to here what others think.

[bobm12]

Hi Geo,

 

Interesting question.

 

My take on it is -- and risking being completely wrong due to my limited experience on this field -- that no matter how maintenance free a design might be, in practice there might be proven ways, in this case lubrication, to complement it. I'm thinking on the solvents and traces of chemicals left that may remain while cleaning the parts, making it necessary to add a little "extra" to get them going again as intended in the begining.

 

For example, one movement I know, almost like the back of my hand, say Seiko 7S26A (sorry for the over simplification), the service chart indicates using regular Moebius 9010 on the pallet fork jewels, by using Moebius 9415 it improves performace. (maybe not by much but it is there). So, experience and time tested "performance tricks" might just play a role as in this case.

 

In any case, I hope another, more experienced memeber can abound on this a little bit more.

Edited October 16, 2014 by bobm12

[mwilkes]

Coaxials...It's something that I've wondered about too. The whole point was to allow watches to go for a decade without servicing, but (a) the oils don't last 10 years (allegedly) and (b) the rest of the movement needs servicing anyway... Is the whole thing a swizz?

[Lawson]

Outstanding video, as always Mark.

 

One little suggestion mate.  I lot of us use your video as a definitive guide on servicing these movement: I know I have :)  And in your early videos you named the oils and greases that you used each time you applied it.  I know you may think it's redundant, but by naming the lubricants each time I was able to remember and grasp why each one was used in it's certain place.  This is somewhat missing in your recent videos, and it's a part I miss greatly.

 

 

As for the movement, I love how open and accessible the bridges are on this movement, making it a lot easier to align the pivots when your reassembling the movement.  And I really appreciate you going through the different wheels that look similar and where they go ... it's these little extras that make your videos stand out from the rest :)

 

It saddens me that Omega only reference this as a "Co-Axial" Movement.  I personally will always call it a "Daniels" Co-Axial Movement\Escapement , in recognition of it's inventor.  When you listen to the story of George's struggle to get his evolutionary design recognized by the watch industry; and how, because of their failure to be able to understand and implement it, t'was shunned by many of the major companies: his name should always be synonymous with the first practical escapement design in over 250 years.

 

A true man of brilliance: Dr. George Daniels CBE 1926 - 2011

[emso]

I have just finished watching the videos and found it very informative. I'm a bit confused and it has raised a question. I thought George Daniels designed the co-axial escapement to run without lubrication, why then does Omega recommend lubricating it? To me it seems like an unnecessary complication that does not give a time keeping advantage over conventional escapements.

What is your take on it Mark? I'd also like to here what others think.

Yes it was designed no to oil the escapement you're right

But

Danies coaxial runs at 21600 frequency,and escape wheel made by gold

Omega in collaboration with him changed it to 28800 and the material of the escape wheel

The forces applied to the escapement were too big and the tips of it which were too fine started to deform(getting mushroom form)

So in the watches which were sold started stopping after a while

Omega saw that and made a revision on the movement,changed the frequency to 25000 and started oiling the tips of the escapement to avoid mushrooming effect

I hope i answered your question Geo

Br

Emso

p.s: sent from my s****y phone so sorry for typing mistakes

[Geo]

Excellent answer Emso!

Given what you say, it seems a shame that the very thing that Daniels was trying to achieve for use in everyday watches, to all extents and purposes, failed. Possibly that is why Patek decided not to take it on first. It seems to me that an Omega fitted with one of these has no horological benefit, and is really just a relatively affordable tribute to the great man.