I feel like in all the limited releases, bond watches, and sponsorship deals, people forget just how amazing Omega's approach to technological advancement is. They constantly impress me. I do wonder, much like your article on the Deepsea Challenge discussed the fight over depth ratings, the industry is at a point where they are fighting over seconds...and at 0 to +2/day guarantee, they are running out of seconds to fight over. Where do we go after all the worlds are conquered?
That's a very good question. There's no such thing as a completely stable oscillator (although atomic clocks are getting awfully close; ± less than a second over the age of the entire universe ain't too shabby). I think there are probably practical limits to how precise a watch with a balance, spring, and mechanical escapement can be but I also don't know if we are there yet. If Omega can actually deliver on 0/+2 with Spirate, a silicon balance spring, free sprung adjustable mass balance and the co-axial escapement, that's an incredible accomplishment. Rolex doesn't guarantee that, but on the other hand, we should remember that their ±2 seconds per day spec represents a maximum deviation in rate – anecdotally, they seem to do much better and I think there's more to that than people just getting lucky with regulation. If the Spirate standard is implemented I suspect we'll see what you see in any large series production of precision chronometers – some, probably most, will be within spec or better but some will drift and require adjustment after delivery to the customer (otherwise, why advertise that you can adjust at the boutique?)
It's sort of a philosophical question beyond a certain point, I guess – at some point, you're deploying an awful lot of high tech, sophisticated, materials-science dependent solutions just to kinda sorta approach quartz 😉 but I still think it's interesting to see companies like Rolex and Omega attack the problem, especially at such a large scale.
Fantastic technical description, as always Jack. I appreciate your comments on the mass production and interchangeability aspects.
As an engineer and watchmaker, I have one general future request: please comment on the after-sales service implications of technical advances such as this. e.g. servicing these movements will be more expensive, or take longer, or be less frequent, or parts that were repaired before must now be replaced whole, which means higher cost for parts, etc.
Thanks Jerry! It's a good point. This is a highly complex system with a lot of promise but you are obviously more or less locked in if you need the watch serviced – it's going to be Omega or nobody for the foreseeable future, unless someone invents some sort of Mr. Silicon at home fabrication machine ;) and even then, you better have the exact dimensions, especially if the balance spring needs to be replaced. On the other hand, as I mention towards the end of the story, it's increasingly difficult to service modern watch movements without OEM parts at an authorized service center. I have a very strong personal preference for watches with easily available parts, which can be serviced by an independent watchmaker but I feel like there are fewer of those every day.
Orthogonal to the actually important technical details of this mechanism... I note that this watch's visual design shares execution in yellow and black with the (most recent?) previous watch introducing a major movement innovation – the >15000 Gauss Aqua Terra "Bumblebee" from 2013 (which I'm pleased to own one of).
Just two examples clearly count as anecdote rather than data, but I wonder if there's an intentional theme here. Has anyone heard a reference to this from Omega, or can you think of additional examples of or counterexamples to this possible pattern?
Keep up the good work!
Thanks very much, and thanks for reading!
Thanks for the shout-out Jack. 🏴☠️
Great write up, really love learning how it works. I'm up for anything that can improve the accuracy of a watch, especially at scale.
I feel like in all the limited releases, bond watches, and sponsorship deals, people forget just how amazing Omega's approach to technological advancement is. They constantly impress me. I do wonder, much like your article on the Deepsea Challenge discussed the fight over depth ratings, the industry is at a point where they are fighting over seconds...and at 0 to +2/day guarantee, they are running out of seconds to fight over. Where do we go after all the worlds are conquered?
That's a very good question. There's no such thing as a completely stable oscillator (although atomic clocks are getting awfully close; ± less than a second over the age of the entire universe ain't too shabby). I think there are probably practical limits to how precise a watch with a balance, spring, and mechanical escapement can be but I also don't know if we are there yet. If Omega can actually deliver on 0/+2 with Spirate, a silicon balance spring, free sprung adjustable mass balance and the co-axial escapement, that's an incredible accomplishment. Rolex doesn't guarantee that, but on the other hand, we should remember that their ±2 seconds per day spec represents a maximum deviation in rate – anecdotally, they seem to do much better and I think there's more to that than people just getting lucky with regulation. If the Spirate standard is implemented I suspect we'll see what you see in any large series production of precision chronometers – some, probably most, will be within spec or better but some will drift and require adjustment after delivery to the customer (otherwise, why advertise that you can adjust at the boutique?)
It's sort of a philosophical question beyond a certain point, I guess – at some point, you're deploying an awful lot of high tech, sophisticated, materials-science dependent solutions just to kinda sorta approach quartz 😉 but I still think it's interesting to see companies like Rolex and Omega attack the problem, especially at such a large scale.
Fantastic technical description, as always Jack. I appreciate your comments on the mass production and interchangeability aspects.
As an engineer and watchmaker, I have one general future request: please comment on the after-sales service implications of technical advances such as this. e.g. servicing these movements will be more expensive, or take longer, or be less frequent, or parts that were repaired before must now be replaced whole, which means higher cost for parts, etc.
Keep educating us Jack!
Thanks Jerry! It's a good point. This is a highly complex system with a lot of promise but you are obviously more or less locked in if you need the watch serviced – it's going to be Omega or nobody for the foreseeable future, unless someone invents some sort of Mr. Silicon at home fabrication machine ;) and even then, you better have the exact dimensions, especially if the balance spring needs to be replaced. On the other hand, as I mention towards the end of the story, it's increasingly difficult to service modern watch movements without OEM parts at an authorized service center. I have a very strong personal preference for watches with easily available parts, which can be serviced by an independent watchmaker but I feel like there are fewer of those every day.
I feel like I only understand about half of the technical stuff, yet I still enjoy reading it. Thanks for fighting the good fight!!
My pleasure and thanks for reading!
Hi Jack. Did the first UN Freak use regulating pins on a silicon spring? Best regards
Orthogonal to the actually important technical details of this mechanism... I note that this watch's visual design shares execution in yellow and black with the (most recent?) previous watch introducing a major movement innovation – the >15000 Gauss Aqua Terra "Bumblebee" from 2013 (which I'm pleased to own one of).
Just two examples clearly count as anecdote rather than data, but I wonder if there's an intentional theme here. Has anyone heard a reference to this from Omega, or can you think of additional examples of or counterexamples to this possible pattern?