The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I was running the SMP vs SO thread on another forum when this guy pops up and says this

"If I had to pick up one I would take an OMEGA. I voted neither - both offer only logo on a face. Correct me if I'm wrong please but is an ordinary ETA inside Breitling without any modification just in the top grade?"

so I replied

"Nope its highly modified by Breitling from what I understand barely looks anything like an ETA when its finished in their factorys"

I meant technicaly wise not visually by the way

and he replies with this
"I had a couple of minutes and checked. Breitling cal 17 is a rhodium plated ETA 2824-2. Without any other modification. 2824 you can find in many low end automatic watches.

And photos for comparision ETA and CAL17





At least Omega with cal 1120 is based on 2892-A2 (which is widely considered as the best movement ever produced by ETA) with additional 2 jewels, modified rotor and rhodium plating.

However still stick to my opinion neither"

So come on guys give me some help so I can verbally kick this guys butt

_________________

Well I don't know about 'kicking his butt', but 2824-2 is 25 jewels, 2892-A2 is 21 jewels so not sure where his numbers come from.

That said, anything above 17 jewels in a relatively low complication watch is a silly comparison anyway.

Breitling do not reveal what they do to movements, but they buy ebauches and immediately discard some of the parts to be replaced with their own. They also then test other parts to tighter tolerances than Swatch and replace any that fail to meet their grade. They also refinish the plates.

Any conversation based on which modified movement is better like this is largely an academic exercise. Both watches are based on generic movements with a long history of doing what they do well.

Er thanks Roff I dont normally like to get into debates about wathes but this guy really got my goat he is dissing one of my fave watches and I dont like it,In other words he is comparing it to Branded watches like DKNY or Armani etc and thats just wrong

_________________

ask him why the Breitling is within COSC standards, but other watches using the same movement are not. I don't actually know the answer to this one, but i'm assuming he doesn't either..

_________________
Men are from Mars, women are from Hell.

ETA make three grades of each movement and only the highest grade is designed to be capable of meeting COSC specs (wording chosen carefully).

If Breitling did nothing to the movement then there would be a high level of COSC failures - and there aren't because COSC publishes the failure numbers and there were only around 5,000 or so in 2008 across all submitted movements from all maunfacturers.

I don't really understand the conclusion you're drawing from this data. How do you know that the top grade of 2824 would not pass COSC without modification?

Roff, I thought the 2824 came in 4 grades - Chronometré, Top, Elaboré and Standard, while the 2892 (and variants) came only in Chronometré, Top and Elaboré form?

From what I understand the Top grade is also capable of meeting COSC standards if adjusted correctly. And it'd be a brave person who would say that the Elaboré version definitely wouldn't meet the criteria if adjusted correctly. In fact I bet they all would ALL be able to meet the standard if adjusted correctly as design-wise they are identical. Sure, the higher grade version use a few upgraded parts, but the underlying design is the same.

Besides, (and this will be controversial!) COSC rating isn't the absolute "be all and end all" anyway IMO. As some of you may know, the COSC rating is applied to movements only, not finished watches. In other words only the movement is tested, without being cased-up, without hands, and I believe without winding rotor. Hence while a base movement may pass the COSC standard, anything can happen between the test and the final casing up. This is part of the reason why a number of COSC rated watches don't actually perform to within COSC tolerances straight from the shop.

In my opinion, the Fleurier Quality Foundation (set up by Chopard, Parmigiani Fleurier, Bovet Fleurier and Vaucher) is the ultimate test for a watch as they test the entire cased-up and finished watch. The final part of their testing process involves ensuring that the finished watch is capable of running at a rate of 0/+5 seconds per day. Not only that, the Foundation also ensure a certain level of aesthetic competence too - truly the ultimate test for a watch. The only problem is that not many companies submit their watches to the Fleurier Quality Foundation yet.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

I have nothing of value to contribute to this thread (surprise!) but I wanted to say "Thank you."
This is the type of thread that I joined for and hang around for, but have not seen enough of recently as we have gotten side tracked into other, less educational, things. So again, thank you, and lets keep threads like this going!

_________________
Chronomat, Steel/Gold, MOP Dial, 2-tone band (2008)
Super Avenger Black Baton Dial (2009)
Bentley B04 GMT Silver Dial (2013)
Avenger Blacksteel Baton Dial (2014)

Agreeing with BoneDoc, and this test is a new one to me! Sounds like the kind of test i'd like my watch to pass! I realise you said not many watch makers submit their watches to this test, but do you know of a few that do? I take it the watches passing this test are going to be budget busters?

_________________
Men are from Mars, women are from Hell.

Currently it's only subscribed to by Parmigiani, Bovet and Chopard, but it is open to all manufacturers if they fancy undergoing that kind of testing!

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

+1

I visit many forums but this one is the best, all subjects together!

_________________
Mat

Breitling Navitimer 01
Omega Seamaster 300mc
Omega Speedmaster Pro "Mitsukoshi Mod"
Seiko Prospek Orange Samurai

Sorry Driver8, you are right about the 4th grade on 2824, I forgot that

I am not suggesting that the chronometer grade ebauches won't meet the COSC specs, what I am saying is that they are designed to be capable of meeting COSC specs. There's nothing to say that when regulated it will consistently meet the specs in all positions, at all temperatures.

Will most of them make it, maybe, will the likely 99%+ make it that Breitling achieves, no - not without the reworking / replacement of parts to finer tolerances.

As for COSC, there are more threats to its future than ever before. FQF is certainly an interesting animal, and PP have moved away from COSC as well because they are not seeing the value. We can argue that the tolerances aren't tight enough for modern watches, and I can see that argument to some extent, but it's tough to argue with the process that COSC uses.

To my mind the biggest problem is that COSC do such a poor job of promoting what they do - most consumers, and even many enthusiasts have no idea what COSC means. Currently only around 3% of Swiss watches are COSC certified, and that should offer a degree of exclusivity - with a tightening of parameters, a better positioning of the standard, and marketing in conjunction with the major manufacturers and COSC could go from strength to strength.

On the flip side, there may be push back from manufacturers to tighten the standards - at the end of the day Rolex / Omega / Breitling want to pass the test!

I know one thing - I'd love to get my hands on COSC to manage it for a couple of years (anyone listening?)!

Just ran across this, interesting read:
http://www.timezone.com/library/wbore/w ... 4647656250

I agree, COSC should mean something. It's one of the reasons I wear a Breitling.

As a member of the NAWCC, I recently came across this link on a post that I thought interesting considering that Breitling uses both 2824 and 2892 movements.
http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2824/eta2824.html