The Breitling Watch Source Forums

What do you guys think of them both? I personally like the design of the current PO better then the new one that just came out, but was curious if the new movement is significantly better; or are they equally reliable/consistent that it doesn't really matter? I realize the 8500 is so new that it might perhaps be too soon to tell how good or bad it is. Thanks!

The 8500 is in-house, while the 2500 is ETA based, so as a WIS the 8500 is streets ahead IMO. In terms of reliability etc, then I'd say they're likely to be equally as good, plus both are COSC certified so accuracy is comparable as well.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

Agree with Driver8, 8500 os a long way ahead and the co-axial escapement is a meaningful advancement. 8500 also gets a 3 year warranty.

The 8500 movement is more prestigious, but if I may, I would offer the advice that you don't buy the watch you like less because it happens to have an in-house movement, especially if it's your first nice watch. If you clearly prefer the look of the 2500 movement watch, then that's the one to buy.

That said, I would not be afriad of the 8500 movement. As I previously posted, co-axial watches have had a few teething pains, but I believe they are exactly that, few. Either watch should be reliable and accurate. The 8500 may be slightly more accurate, but the likely difference should be negligible.

_________________
Scott

AP Royal Oak 15400, silver
Zenith Chronomaster El Primero Classic Cars
Vintage gold Corum
Rolex DJ 36 TT, oyster dial, oyster/smooth
Baume & Mercier Riviera 200m, silver dial/aquamarine bezel
Breitling Superocean 57, rose/stainless

ok this might be a stupid question.....

does swatch group own Omega? and if so doesnt that make the ETA movement in the Omega inhouse?

Swatch does own Omega, but that doesn't make ETA movements in house. Swatch also owns Breguet, but would you call that in house with a 7750 in it?

ETA movements are generic designs that have been produced by ETA under various corporate owners for 40+ years. Just because the parent company also bought other brands doesn't mean that they can provide movements to those companies and suddenly make them manufactures.

I would love an in-house PO, but I love my PO that i have now even more. It's such a great watch that, to me, the premium that omega is charging for the 8500 PO isn't justified.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leave the gun, take the cannoli."

My all original 1951 Omega Seamaster keeps better time than my Blackbird did-I think we tend to overcomplicate things here. You really can't go wrong.

_________________
************* ************************ **********
PAM359, Omega PO Big Size, 1951 Omega Seamaster, Rolex Sea Dweller

Agreed. While I would definitely prefer in-house, it's just not enough for me to trade the one that I have.

_________________
Happines is Good Health and a Bad Memory.
"Ingrid Bergman"

A true in-house/manufacture movement is entirely conceived, designed and built by the watch manufacturer. Of course the creation of some parts may be outsourced (hairsprings for example), but the design and construction is made by the watch manufacturer itself. Contrast that to ETA movements which are, as Roff said, generic movements that have been built by ETA/Valjoux for decades, and it's worth remembering that ETA don't make watches - they just make movements for others. Current ownership may be Swatch, but just because Omega and ETA have the same parent company it that doesn't mean that Omega can claim ETA's to be in-house.

The whole in-house thing can be as complicated as you want to make it - I wrote a pretty long post on it a while ago - as there are some who would say that a true in-house has everything (i.e. all movement parts) made by the watch manufacturer themselves. In practise, very few do that : Roger Dubuis make everything themselves, and I believe Rolex do too, but those are the only ones I can think of.

Then you get "brand exclusive" movements, such as Omega's 3300 series. There are made for Omega (and crucially only for Omega) by Frederic Piguet...... which incidentally is also owned by the Swatch Group. As Omega don't make it themselves (and as far as I'm aware, didn't design it either), then it's not an in-house Omega movement, but as you will only find that movement in Omega watches it becomes a "brand exclusive".

I would probably define things as follows, although there are no doubt additional shades of grey between the layers -

"True" Manufacture Movement - Movement conceived, designed and constructed by a single watch manufacturer using parts that are entirely made by the manufacturer in their own premises. (This one is just a minor subtlety of the "Manufacture Movement" below in my opinion, but this one is undoubtedly the most "pure", for want of a better word).

Manufacture Movement - Movement conceived, designed and constructed by a single watch manufacturer in their own premises. Construction of some individual parts may be outsourced, but design and build is still the manufacturers own.

Brand Exclusive Movement - Movement designed (either in part of fully) and constructed by a third party on behalf of a watch manufacturer. The movement is only used in the manufacturer's watches.

Modified Movement - ETA (or other manufacturer) made base movement that has been modified by the watch manufacturer in some way. For example, by the addition of a module on top of the base, or by replacement of certain key parts - e.g. balance spring, escapement, etc.

Unmodified/Standard Movement - ETA (or other manufacturer) made base movement that has not been modified in any way by the watch manufacturer.

As I say, there are no doubt many shades of grey in between these fairly broad buckets, but they give an idea.

Things were a lot easier back in the 60's and 70's when things were a little more clear cut!

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

Summed it up real nice driver! thank you for that...

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

thanks for the explination guys.

I've been wondering what, specifically, is so much better about the 8500? The 2500 also has the co-axial escapement, and reports by many owners speak of accuracy in the 1-2 seconds/day range. Any Omega movement with a silicon balance spring gets a 4-year warranty, and there has been speculation that the newest generation of 2500 movements will also come with a silicon spring. If that speculation is incorrect, then the 8500 would have the advantage of the silicon spring and the associated warranty. Also, the 8500 does have a 60-hour power reserve, compared to 48 hours on the 2500. Beyond that, though, I haven't seen any comprehensive explanation of what makes it a more advantageous movement than the 2500. I distinguish advantageous from prestigious. Clearly an in-house movement has more cachet; I'm speaking more in terms of practical matters: accuracy, reliability, durability, service intervals, service cost, etc.

You've pretty much answered your own question there! Apart from the things you've listed there isn't much else on a purely practical level to recommend the 8500 over the 2500 IMO. However on a more esoteric level the in-house is, as you say, more prestigious to some (myself included) so it gets the nod over the 2500 IMO.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

OK, I can accept that. I'm not saying the 8500 isn't worth the extra cash for those who would prefer to have it. I just keep seeing people say it is a "better" movement than the 2500, and I've been wondering how so. That's especially relevant to anyone debating between the new SMP and PO, given that the SMPs are retaining the 2500. If the new 2500s do have silicon balance springs, then it sounds like the 60-hour power reserve and the in-house cachet are the primary things going for the 8500. I understand, though, that greater power reserve might indicate more efficiency, which could result in other, less obvious advantages. One thing I don't like about the 8500, though, is it bumps the watch thickness up by 1.5mm. For that reason, along with cost, I'm glad the SMPs are keeping the 2500.