Hello! I am just now starting to develop a keen interest in mechanical watches. I am a mechanical engineer and have always been highly interested in mechanisms. This is why I am a hobbyist small engine mechanic. I do so very much appreciate the video you posted and the information you provided. I admit that I have to agree with Alex Laing. Your video makes clear to me how the coaxial movement divides and separates the regulation function of the escapement from the power function. A standard escapement requires a "nudge" from the pallet fork to push a small amount of main spring energy into the balance wheel motion. Due to the angular nature of that "nudge" the action of a standard escapement is not very efficient and requires each pallet fork ruby to perform two functions....although each of the two functions acts on different surfaces of each ruby. Same goes for the escapement wheel teeth. The coaxial movement supplies the power to the balance wheel assembly via the second smaller wheel. Very ingenious! Thanks again. Without your posted video I would not have figured this out! Much appreciated! And thanks to you Alex for confirming what I thought I was seeing in the video. You cleared up my confusion!
Thanks PM245, but since I have no background in ME (other than a physics course), I rely heavily on George Daniels' book, 'Watchmaking.' Beginning on page 245 in the chapter on escapements and Appendix III there's a lot of material on co-axial escapements, and while I understand the basics, I think that an ME would find the depth of that discussion far richer than what I could correctly relay. In any event thank you for your kind words and if you see any aspect that would help clarify or correct my comments, I welcome them. Kindest regards, Bill
Hi Bill. I’m sorry to say that in this case I fear your often high-quality information is incorrect! The advantage of the co-axial escapement over the lever escapement has got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that “friction is divided between two wheels” or that there are fewer “hits” per wheel (indeed the notion of “hits” is irrelevant since it is not contact per se that creates friction). Nor is the primary benefit the reduction of the ruckus in the watch. The point is that, unlike the lever escapement where each of the two pallets need to provide both a locking mechanism as well as an impulse to the balance wheel, the co-axial escapement separates these two functions and therefore means the impulse can be radial instead of the sliding action of the lever escapement. Without this sliding force, theoretically the escapement needs no lubrication, a feature of a normal mechanical watch which increases in viscosity over time and in turn reduces accuracy. If you want to learn more about this, I would highly recommend watching Daniels’s 1990 lecture to the American Watchmakers’ Institute. Alex
Alex, thanks for that clarification. I knew that the there was less need for lubrication, but I thought it was because the co-axial caused less friction because there was less contact per axial. I have Daniels' book, Watchmaking, and I'll go over that again and add any clarification to #82. I'll make it right after checking what I said and what Daniels says in his book, and I will indeed view the 1990 lecture. Kindest regards, Bill
Main idea seems to be that the impulse to the oscillating balance wheel is given in middle point of the oscillation, when the kinetic energy is at is largest and no potential energy. Then the impulse has the least effect on the frequency. (adding only very little speed when the speed is highest is effecting less than pushing nearly stopped balance wheel. So the idea is really separating impulse function from the escapement function. Explanation to patent examiners seems correct. ( I am a patent attorney and former examiner.) I was wondering why basic escapement looks to give two impulses in bad times of oscillations. Problem solved here.
I am trying to understand the advantages of the co-axial escapement. If You watch animations of the Swiss lever escapement here on UA-cam there seems to be no difference in the moment of giving the impulse to the balance wheel (I mean the one with the spring inside). On the other hand there is a relatively long period of time in which the pellets of the anchor slide off the teeth of the anchor wheel after having blocked its way. If You then watch the co-axial escapement You’ll see that this sliding off is completely eliminated and the addition of another starlike wheel allows a pure blocking function. So we come back to the question of friction. In my opinion this is what omega mean by reducing the need of service. Any answer very welcome!
Thanks for the clear imformative video! I learned so much about my pocketwatch and how it works! Very interesting. Lots of respect. I can listen to you all day.
You definitely need a 3d printer!!! I would love to watch some more videos on watch mechanics with large components like you've made out of popsicle sticks :) and a 3d printer makes that super easy
@@watchartsci Cyber-monday sales still going :) a cheap dpm printer was all i needed to start prototyping drone projects in-house. Best investment i ever made in a machine... watches excluded.. of course
Thanks Yokumato! A 3-D animation would probably been more accurate...but I have no CAD nor talents to make the necessary features...so I used popsicles sticks! (Sort of fun too!) Kindest regards, Bill
Thanks for helping me understand what is happening inside my new Seamaster. With my loupe, I can see l little of the activity and now have a better appreciation.
Jin, there are a lot of good videos on making a watch. The important part is getting the parts that go together. Best wishes in your success, Bill. (Also, check out our Facebook group, 'Pretentious Watchmakers' (facebook.com/groups/289111398611631) Take care, Bill
Bill - I just discovered your channel! Very interesting! Thanks for posting all this. I find the "precision" and "detail" of watches, especially mechanical watches, to be fascinating. The attention to detail plus the design is just amazing.
Hi Charles, I'm glad you liked it. Here's a new one that I just finished today you might like: ua-cam.com/video/s1dY2yNC12I/v-deo.html It looks at the new FP Journe Chronometre Resonance ... it includes dual remontoirs d'egalité as well as the resonance through dual balance wheels. Take care , Bill
Rojer Smith has done presentations on the Co-Axial escapement many times and he tells the same story each time. The argument for this escapement is lower friction than the standard escapement, so the need for lubrication is substantially lower. It's argued that a movement using this escapement can go much longer without maintenance and still keep consistent time.
@@watchartsci I am not sure if you have mentioned it during the episode, but the co-ax escapement is by some considered solution that doesnt really solve any problems, as in Swiss lever escapement is already good enough. Notably the adoption of co-ax didnt happen in the major watch manufacturers aside from one... put it this way would be really surprised to see one of the watch houses you classified as high/exceptional horology to do a co-ax. Just my 5 cents
@@ignacyk4585 Yes, that's a point, but the fact that "everyone" doesn't adopt it may be as much about the cost to put it into production as it was because the Swiss lever was just as good. But you are correct in pointing out that it was not widely adopted. Take care, Bill
I don’t get why it took me until i reached your small channel for the basic point of “it divides the force would normally be exerted on 1 pallet onto multiple”. All the previous videos I’ve seen focus on one part at a time and purely in watchmaker jargon but don’t feel that they explain both parts together. Thank you.
I have owned an Omega De Ville Co Axial since 2014 that I have worn every day as it is my only watch. It has never been serviced and keeps better time now than when I first bought it. I have just watched this video and it’s the first time I have fully understood how the co axial movement works. The funny thing is I have been looking for a manual wind watch with a glass back and I think Nomos looks like a watch that might fit the bill, unless I was to get another Omega with a manual wind but fear the case thickness could well be an issue after the slim De Ville.
Let me make it VERY SIMPLE for everyone... (1) The Co-axial escapement does not use inclined surfaces rubbing against one another to propel the pallet fork and hence balance wheel. (2) It used one set of pallets for locking and another set which is directly pushed when the first set unlocks. (3) This reduces friction and greatly reduces the lubrication needs. That's all! Everything else is simply mechanical convenience and packaging efficiency to effect the above.
Hey Dwight ... let me make it very complete: Read pp. 242-252 and study Appendix III of George Daniels "Watchmaking" ... then you won't have to depend on videos with comments by those of us with dangerously little knowledge.Take care and stay safe, Bill 😷
Once a professor, always a professor. Thanks for the breakdown. My only hesitation with it is the thickness it creates in the movement, thus essentially fattening up any watch it goes in.
Hey Jay, good point about the width. I hadn't thought about that, and from the looks of it, that Omega Co-Axial 3500 looks pretty hefty. I wonder if they're working on a way to flatten it using Roger Smith single wheel co-axial? Cheers ,Bill
Just got the omega speedmaster racing 40mm. I Love it, it's my first luxury watch (my most expensive one beforehand was only about £300). It keeps time very well, a little fast but putting it crown down over night fixes that for the most part. Great video! Thanks for the in depth info.
Peter, that's the best kind of watch: a high quality one that you appreciate and enjoy. What more could you ask for in a watch? Congratulations and have fun. Kindest regards, Bill
thank you for your very informative explanation of co-axial. Now I can explain why I just had to have my SpeedMaster co-axial and my new SeaMaster co-axial. I am not a vintage watch guy,rather I love technology and co-axial seems to be an amazing technology for sustaining the watches. Those 2 are my only Omegas but perhaps not my last purchases. Thanks again, this was very helpful.
Glad it was helpful, Verdell. I've got a couple of vintages, but really not into them either. I especially like mechanical innovations that do not involve silicon or electronics- just innovations like the Co-axial escapement. Take care, Bill
@@watchartsci it was great to find your video because I'm going to get my omega coaxial moon phase next week, and I hope I'll understand it and enjoy it even better!
Any good mechanical clock must compensate for the weather. Would be interesting to hear how these funescapements do that. I still love the tuning fork design. But pure mechanics is still the real fun.
WatchArtSci Hi Bill, Big fan of your channel. I appreciate your ability to make sense of these complicated movements. I would love to see you do a technical comparison of the ZDL oscillator vs. The Grand Seiko's Spring Drive. Either way, keep up the good work!
Hi Ben, I'm taking a watchmaking class now and am halfway through disassembling a Sellita SW210-1. (...didn't think it was a good idea to destroy an F.P. Journe movement... that'll come later....) Still need to learn more about co-axials too! Kindest regards, Bill
George Daniel also went to Rolex with the Co-Axl, but they did not like the Ideal of reducen the hZ from 28.800 to 25.500 swinfs pr hour. As far as I know Omega did not listen to much of him either and went on making the 28.800 swings still be the mainthing of there watch. And boy have many Omegawathes to begin with with the co-axl did not work right. A watchmaker told me in the beginning over 30 % was mailfunktion wthin 3 mounths. My own mail funktion after 5 days.
Thanks for the update André. Roger Smith has a Rolex with a GD co-axial ... from one of the demos George Daniels sent to Rolex. To be sure, the watchmakers took a while to spool up on the co-axial and bugs to be worked out on mass production. Cheers, bill
Hi GeckoCkCkCk, as far as I know they use a lever escapements, but I don't know the materials they use in their hairsprings; even though they employ a Breguet overcoil in their shape. If you find out more, please let us know. Bill
@@watchartsci yes I like the new silicone escapements that are out now and Zenith Defy Labs has recently produced a new silicone oscillating system to replace the traditional one we've been using since the 1600s: www.hodinkee.com/articles/zenith-defy-lab-oscillator-introducing
Great explanation on the coaxial mechanism! Although I do want to point out that Zenith's movement has nothing to do with quantum physics, at least from my experience as a phd student doing physics at Harvard. Zenith is still making great watches tho!
Thanks Xin Wei! I didn't think I said that Zenith's movement was related to quantum physics ... or even quantum computing, which is much closer to a topic that I better appreciate but do not understand.😉 Take care and be safe, Bill😷
I feel the explanation of this Co-axial escapement in this video is not totally correct. Here is my explanation. Out of the four pallets existing in this escapement, their roles are as follows. Look at the diagram at 18:22 in this video, as the others have a slightly different action. There are two pallets whose role is destined for the locking mechanism of the escapement larger outer wheel and there are two other pallets whose role is destined to impulse the periodic rotation to the oscillating unit. Let us name the pallets as 1, 2, 3, 4 starting from the left to right. 1. The two locking pallets are 2 and 4 both of which engage alternately on the larger escapement wheel always going clockwise. 2. The two impulse pallets are 1 and 3. Impulse Pallet 1, (anticlockwise) on the oscillating/rotating sprung unit, engages with the large escapement wheel (clockwise) and goes with it AFTER pallet 2 unlocks it. The longer Impulse Pallet 3 (anticlockwise) engages with the central wheel (clockwise) and goes with it AFTER pallet 4 unlocks the larger escapement wheel. That is basically it. I do not agree that there is no surface friction on these pallets as there is a slight radial sliding friction on all four of them WHEN THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DISENGAGEMENT. When they engage, there is no sliding friction as they would be in the right position before the respective touch occurs. Note that while the large escapement wheel has an instant impulsive STOP rotary arresting locked action on pallet 2 and 4, the impulse action on both pallet 1 and 3 is a gentle engagement on the move. Hope that helps the newcomers to the Co-axial escapement. Note that if this escapement is made with more teeth on the escapement wheel, it would not work as when impulse pallet 1 is moving anticlockwise it would hit the tips of the large escapement wheel. George Daniels had no choice in this as the angle of engagement of the radius of pallet 1 and the radius of the large engagement wheel is very critical for this co-axial escapement to work. I believe that pallet 1 engaging on the escapement wheel was an untidy afterthought, but still with eight teeth or seven teeth pallet one could engage and flies back without hitting the large escapement wheel. I made a few wooden models of this co-axial escapement, it works, but I do consider pallet 1 as an untidy and unelegant mechanical arrangement which makes the co-axial escapement very UNSYMMETRICAL in its operation. It works, less sliding action, but rather mechanically unsymmetrical and untidy and needs great precision to make it work.
Omega describes as a feature on the websites as unsprung, or free sprung balance. I can't figure out what this means. I haven't heard any descriptions of escapements mention this.
Matthew, the free sprung balances do not rely on the l length of the hairspring for adjustment. Instead, they rely on weights on the balance, and so have no regulator. For making adjustments, I prefer the sprung balances with a regulator; but for fine watchmaking, I look for free sprung.... and I don't mess with them! Cheers, Bill
Thank you Bill for your explaination. The co-axial escapement is quite a simple idea after all, with clear benefits. I'm glad it was industrialised by Nicolas Hayek, my favourite "character" in the watch history. Innovations on the field of regulating organs are particularly interesting. Between the Zenith Defy Lab elasticity, the "grasshopper" senfine and Dominique Renaud blades, I'd be curious to see real life applications in modern watches.
Hey Roman, thanks man! It seems that all genius arrives at simple solutions....that are only revealed through brilliant minds. For mechanical watchmaking, we are indeed in exciting times. Kindest regards, Bill
Hey algorithm007ify, from what I know of the Seiko Spring Drive, to some extent it's a quartz in sheep's clothing. While the generated electricity is mechanical, the oscillator is quartz. Not a bad thing and certainly ingenious. As for the Zenith movement, the quantum vibrations are the stuff of quantum physics, which post-dated my physics course. So, all I know about those good vibrations are what the Beach Boys tell me... At one time I delved into quantum programming, and it hurt my brain; so while not wholly unfamiliar with what phenomenon Defy Labs harnessed to produce the balance regulation, I'm mired in the fuzzy logic required to really understand it. Kindest regards, Bill
WatchArtSci ofc, I’m sorry I didn’t meant to remove any credits from George Daniels, he is a genius and a visionary, what I meant was that omega is the best watchmaker because he was the only sole company believed in him, payed for the patent and not making enough money because of the manufacture costs, but they insisted it and after 20 years they mastered that movement, and guess what? Now that the patent rights are expired, everyone now starting to want and use coaxial.. that’s why I said omega is the best, and I will never buy any watch that has a coaxial movement done by someone is not omega, for the very reverence I have towards George Daniels
@@CapitanTavish Yeah, and Daniels even made special examples of other watches with the coaxial escapement to show how efficient it was-Rolex among others. (I think that Roger Smith may have that Rolex...) Take care, Bill
So what are the advantages of the coaxial? Is it more accurate in the long run? Is the service interval of the entire movement extended? Maybe theoretically, maybe not in actuality. Does anyone have long-term positive experience?
The major advantage is less friction, smoother escapement, more consistent timing, Yehoshua. Extended service intervals, but fewer who can service them-Omega would need to be serviced by Omega or an Omega watchmakers who has access to the escapement parts required for repair. Take care and be safe, Bill😷
@@watchartsci Thank you. But what about the other parts of the movement? Wouldn't they still need the frequent attention, even though the escapement is in nice shape?
Co-Axial also means you are usually dependent on factory service ... increasing cost of ownership. None of the independent watchmakers in my town will work on a co-axial Omega.
Hey JR, you should never own one, then. That'll teach them to innovate! You are absolutely right; most watchmakers...actually watch technicians...love ETAs and other watches they've worked on without a stretch of or expansion of their skills. Here's a tip: Never, never, never buy a FP Journe Chronomètre à Résonance! Cheers, Bill
I knew that was coming ...because you mentioned it went off for service recently. But that is still my favorite in your collection. I liked today's show and the use of the graphics to illustrate the discussion. Am sure all your subscribers appreciate the good work you are doing.
The explanation of only hitting every other teeth is misleading. There only needs to be half the number of teeth. if the other half remained, they'd be there doing nothing, except if you want to switch to the other teeth every time you service your watch. That may actually make sense to practically double the longevity of that part - that is, if you can get the geometry to work. Which leads me to think... what if you have a tri-axial, quad-axial, etc. setup? Then you'd need a third, fourth, etc. fewer teeth. I'm sure that there's diminishing marginal returns with each additional wheel after wheel number X, but that wouldn't stop other watchmakers from creating a tri-axial escapement, right? Or, is that too similar and unoriginal to call it their own invention?
Hey KK, that's a great question! Here's a demonstration that does what I was trying to do about 100x better! ua-cam.com/video/NMWpT-MniFo/v-deo.html Let me know if that answers your question. Kindest regards, Bill
Good discussion, but I don’t see any real improvement, just a difference. And in practical implementation it hasn’t proved as accurate as the traditional pallet and escapement. Omega co-axial movements are no where near as accurate as Rolex, Blancpain, Glashutte Original, Patek, etc. Have had two Omega METAS and they both exceed the +5 in real use by a second or two a day. Rolex seem to easily beat that in real world use. Additionally, for some reason the Omega co-axial implementation, not sure if this is inherent or just their implementation, are VERY thick, making their co-axial watches much less wearable. And even with a lower beat rate Omega doesn’t match the new Rolex movements in time of operation using a higher beat rate (not sure that is all that important, but run time has now become a big advertising point).
I really don't wanna be that guy but its co-axial, not co-axel/axl. Nonetheless very informative video and these animations are very good! Fun fact: George Daniels made the co-axial escapement as an escapement that did not need lubercation, but in practice it always gets lubercated.
Thanks for the explanation about the coaxial escapement Bill. I'm a big fan of it mainly due to George Daniels story around it and of course for its effectiveness in terms of functioning. BTW, recommend anyone interested in the theme to watch The Watchmaker's Apprentice movie. Another good source is at www.wsj.com/video/why-george-daniels-watches-sell-for-millions/4AAC4BB9-A945-4903-81A8-8CDB2A6A47E6.html Last but not least Sotheby's will be running an important Daniels' themed auction today. Best
Hey Amintas! I saw that story about Daniel's watch selling for $4,336,656! I'm thinking that maybe FP Journe's watches may be the Picassos of the watch world. Daniels and Dufour already are! There may be a Parmigiani in my near future--not as stunning as yours, but nice... Cheers, Bill
@@watchartsci They use a silicon hairspring because it is superior to metals in numerous ways. Better power reserve. Totally antimagnetic. Much more durable. Etc.
With the revolutionary Zenith Defy Lab oscillator, the co-axial is very _dépassé._ If you are not at all interested in incredible accuracy, then my previous statement means nothing at all. It is all a matter of taste and what your priorities are. I do have a co-axial planet ocean, but since I'm an accuracy maniac -- only within the realm of purely mechanical watches (meaning no electromagnetism or integrated circuit involved) -- I lustfully hunger after the phenomenal Zenith technology.
Hey Lloyd, the ZDL oscillator is fantastic, but it doesn't make the co-axial dépassé; any more than quartz (or more recently the digital smart watch) makes everything in mechanical watchmaking dépass;!! Both the ZDL oscillator and co-axial would be featured in a discussion of innovations in mechanical watches as well as Agenhor's new AgenGraphe; which may overwhelm both the ZDL oscillator and co-axial!! Thanks for your comments, and if you have a good source for more information of the ZDL oscillator, it might be time for a video on it and some other work by Defy Labs!! Kindest regards, Bill
I am with you in the quest for improvement in precision, hence accuracy, in purely mechanical watches. Zenith, however is way outside the reach of many people. I am impressed with the SWATCH produced movements Tissot has been using in their chronometers in the last few years. With these, Tissot swept the 2015 Chronometer held in Le Locle, Switzerland. The elitists contend SWATCH chronometers are ruining haute horology. I see it as the Swiss finally responding to those of us who want high precision at affordable prices. My Tissot Luxury Powermatic 80 Chronometer was two seconds slow by atomic time for the month of September. This from a watch that retailed for $1075 on a leather strap.
+Robert Williams I didn't know about the Tissot. Thank you for that! I'll have to look into that brand more closely (as into a few others I suppose). Cheers! Addendum: It has been mentioned by some 'experts' in the industry that eventually the Zenith Defy Lab technology will trickle down (be adopted/adapted) by other watch manufacturers and be available in watches below the $5000 range. Wait and see...
I've been reading a little about it and looks a really interesting technology - I guess there are polar views in that it is not a traditional mechanical watch as electronics are involved, but on the flip, it's a magnetic braking system applied to a mechanical watch. But it's mechanically powered. I've always been a fan of Seiko watches and I'm planning on adding a spring drive to my collection at some stage. I'm just about to go for a Seamaster which is why I watched this video and subscribed. All the best :)
It is a great shame that such a wonderful thing is enjoyed by so few people. I really hope the patent runs out and it becomes free for all as it always should have been
Hey Shock Wave, both Omega and Roger Smith watches use the co-axial escapement. I'm not sure if it's a patent issue so much as it is fitting the co-axial escapement into an ongoing pattern. There's a new Chinese escapement by Tan Zhua called the "di-axial" that's interesting: www.gphg.org/horlogerie/en/watches/di-axial-escapement Take care and be safe, Bill 😷
Zalem, I have several. Just about any hand-wound movement from H. Moser et Cie, the Parmigiani PF110 (in the Hebdomadaire), F.P. Journe Chronomètre Souvrain Calibre 1304 , Lang & Heyne Caliber VI , Omega movements with the co-axial escapement, the Unitas/ETA 6498, Jaquet 736, (La Joux-Perret 736.xxx), Rolf Lang Dresden Canaletto Précieuse, any hand-wound movement from Kari Voutilainen, Roger Smith or Philippe Dufour, Rolex caliber 7040, and the Bovet calibre 15BM04. My very favorite right now is: Fiona Krüger's Chaos 1 designed by Agenhor; favorite chronograph is AgenGraphe AGH-6361 by Agenhor. Kindest regards, Bill
I am certain your run-of-the-mill watchmaker who is used to working on conventional movements would find this to be true. It's also true of the double-hairspring movements of H. Moser et Cie and just about every tourbillon. Like Rolexes, Zenith, Patek Philippe and every other in-house movement watch, a watchmaker needs specific training for those special configurations.
Crobular, yes, the co-axial is part of the escape mechanism. By common" centre," do you mean the balance wheel arbor or the escape wheel arbor? Or do you mean the power source controlled by the escape mechanism? Or something else? Kindest regards, Bill
Hi C. Aper. I made the animation beginning around 13:34 from four images. I numbered them 1-4 and then just lined them up in the video app. I do not know where to find a CAD model of the co-axial escapement ... and if you find one, let me know. Take care, Bill😷
I’m just getting into Watches in understanding them and I would love it if you could do a review on this Zenith L Primero my father gave me, where can I email you pictures?
Here's a link, Judo that should fill you in nicely: monochrome-watches.com/zenith-50-years-of-el-primero-anniversary-set-review-price/ Take care and be safe, Bill
Does anyone know who this guy Jake Gibbons is? He asked about the vibration characteristics in the Zenith. If anyone runs across him, he can find the answer to his query here: journal.hautehorlogerie.org/en/zeniths-quantum-leap/. Thanks, Bill
Thank you very much for your video. I watched it twice. I still wish I bought a Rolex rather than 2 Omega's. My Omega's are too thick i guess due to this maybe superior movement. I don't really understand it at all But what I do understand is that i spent $10,000 on 2 watches that do not sit perfectly center on my 7.25 inch wrist and that Omega makes a very ugly clunky stainless steel bracelet on the SMPc300 and an awful butterfly clasp on my Aqua Terra. Also do i really need 1.5 Tesla magnetic protection? I may just sell these hyped up Omega's and go back to Grand Seiko high accuracy quartz or a Hi-Beat movement. I love that you not own an Omega. Want to buy mine?
Hey Steve, maybe look at some H. Mosers and Parmigiani Fleurier's ... great deals for great watches and no "premiums" for superior watches. Take care and get your shots if you haven't, Bill😎
My first "high-end" watch was an Omega SeaMaster 300 Master Co-Axial. I bought it for one of several reasons and one was the co-axial movement. However, last month I took that Omega and a Rolex YachtMaster and traded them for a 2010 black dial steel Daytona. I like the Daytona better. I liked the idea of having a co-axial movement watch, and someday I'll probably get another SeaMaster, but not the 300 it was a bit too big. Is your model Swiss Made?
Hi Ryvr, thanks for sharing that experience with a Seamaster. I'm a big Planet Ocean fan; so that would be on my co-axial short list, but recently I discovered a co-axial DeVille, which is more my style. Aren't all Omegas Swiss made? Kindest regards, Bill
Omega may be all Swiss made, not sure. I think those kind of things are kept very secret which is why I hope the Swiss government institutes laws such as the U.S. federal trade commission who brought Shinola to task about its Made in U.S.A. label, or should I say mislabel.
Recently the Swiss changed the rules about what could be labeled "Swiss Made". They can import only certain parts I think or a certain percent of parts. I know a lot of cases were forged in China, but how that counts, I just don't know.
Right they have, but it's not enough. The Swiss need to embrace complete "Swiss Made-ness." They are in danger of losing what makes Made in Switzerland special, unique, and high quality. People will only go so long with being fooled.
Thanks for this, however, it might be a good idea for a script to have been written before the film camera was turned on, and the script should use correct terms, not " meaningless" expressions, such for example, " The main barrel gives a kick to the oscillation wheel " all of which is imprecise English language, which is used to describe a PRECISE engineering energy release. Get the words right, rehearse them, and then turn on the camera please, and one last point, human hands, should be kept out of camera, either to adjust the spectacle position on ones nose, or to describe a mechanical procedure, please use words, NOT hand signals. Thanks for the effort, please lets see a more focussed film the next time.
Anthony, you are so right! I spent all my time trying to clearly understand the concept that I got tangled up. Thanks for the tips! Kindest regards, Bill
Very confusing explanation. Appreciate the attempt, but as an educator myself you should have prepared better in advance. Your pacing is variable, you forget the correct words, and when you try to explain concepts sometimes you get it wrong, as others have pointed out already.
Lucas, stop with the schoolmarmish lectures. I'm sure your pickiness emerges from your own experiences. If you don't like the video; ok, but drop the pretense assuming you know about some perfect video. Take care, Bill
Hi Bill sorry, but you are not good at imparting information, you are not alone in this fault. However, it may be best to get someone else to intemperate your evident wisdom. Sorry ,mate!
Hi Paul, I got the information from Daniel's book on Watchmaking, but may have been better off with direct quotes. So help me out here. What parts should be better clarified? Thanks, Bill
Hi again Bill, must apologise for my remarks (maybe, too many years at sea trying to impart knowledge into youngsters that I suspected would die due to the lack of directly imported knowledge). We are all different and one should always respect that. So, keep on keeping on. Fair winds at your back and calm seas ahead. Mate.
Man, you sound so confused! You spend majority of your clip at failed attempt of explaining the merits of the coaxial escapement. But you entirely miss the point! George Daniels himself manages to do that brilliantly in under two minutes. So repeat his words like a parrot, or spare us. However your stories from behind the curtains are quite entertaining so stick only to them.
Hi Mic602, sorry about that. I was trying to make a cardboard model and failed miserably to make a coherent sentence. Now that I'm halfway through my Level 1 Watchmaking class, I appreciate it much better and I have George Daniels' book, 'Watchmaking" ; I'll use it too. Kindest regards, Bill
Hello! I am just now starting to develop a keen interest in mechanical watches. I am a mechanical engineer and have always been highly interested in mechanisms. This is why I am a hobbyist small engine mechanic. I do so very much appreciate the video you posted and the information you provided. I admit that I have to agree with Alex Laing. Your video makes clear to me how the coaxial movement divides and separates the regulation function of the escapement from the power function. A standard escapement requires a "nudge" from the pallet fork to push a small amount of main spring energy into the balance wheel motion. Due to the angular nature of that "nudge" the action of a standard escapement is not very efficient and requires each pallet fork ruby to perform two functions....although each of the two functions acts on different surfaces of each ruby. Same goes for the escapement wheel teeth. The coaxial movement supplies the power to the balance wheel assembly via the second smaller wheel. Very ingenious! Thanks again. Without your posted video I would not have figured this out! Much appreciated! And thanks to you Alex for confirming what I thought I was seeing in the video. You cleared up my confusion!
Thanks PM245, but since I have no background in ME (other than a physics course), I rely heavily on George Daniels' book, 'Watchmaking.' Beginning on page 245 in the chapter on escapements and Appendix III there's a lot of material on co-axial escapements, and while I understand the basics, I think that an ME would find the depth of that discussion far richer than what I could correctly relay. In any event thank you for your kind words and if you see any aspect that would help clarify or correct my comments, I welcome them. Kindest regards, Bill
Hi Bill. I’m sorry to say that in this case I fear your often high-quality information is incorrect! The advantage of the co-axial escapement over the lever escapement has got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that “friction is divided between two wheels” or that there are fewer “hits” per wheel (indeed the notion of “hits” is irrelevant since it is not contact per se that creates friction). Nor is the primary benefit the reduction of the ruckus in the watch. The point is that, unlike the lever escapement where each of the two pallets need to provide both a locking mechanism as well as an impulse to the balance wheel, the co-axial escapement separates these two functions and therefore means the impulse can be radial instead of the sliding action of the lever escapement. Without this sliding force, theoretically the escapement needs no lubrication, a feature of a normal mechanical watch which increases in viscosity over time and in turn reduces accuracy. If you want to learn more about this, I would highly recommend watching Daniels’s 1990 lecture to the American Watchmakers’ Institute. Alex
Alex, thanks for that clarification. I knew that the there was less need for lubrication, but I thought it was because the co-axial caused less friction because there was less contact per axial. I have Daniels' book, Watchmaking, and I'll go over that again and add any clarification to #82. I'll make it right after checking what I said and what Daniels says in his book, and I will indeed view the 1990 lecture. Kindest regards, Bill
Main idea seems to be that the impulse to the oscillating balance wheel is given in middle point of the oscillation, when the kinetic energy is at is largest and no potential energy. Then the impulse has the least effect on the frequency. (adding only very little speed when the speed is highest is effecting less than pushing nearly stopped balance wheel.
So the idea is really separating impulse function from the escapement function. Explanation to patent examiners seems correct. ( I am a patent attorney and former examiner.)
I was wondering why basic escapement looks to give two impulses in bad times of oscillations. Problem solved here.
Hey Jouni, thanks man! That was great! Kindest regards, Bill
I am trying to understand the advantages of the co-axial escapement. If You watch animations of the Swiss lever escapement here on UA-cam there seems to be no difference in the moment of giving the impulse to the balance wheel (I mean the one with the spring inside). On the other hand there is a relatively long period of time in which the pellets of the anchor slide off the teeth of the anchor wheel after having blocked its way. If You then watch the co-axial escapement You’ll see that this sliding off is completely eliminated and the addition of another starlike wheel allows a pure blocking function. So we come back to the question of friction. In my opinion this is what omega mean by reducing the need of service. Any answer very welcome!
Thanks Alex Lang. You got it right!
Great video! I’m new to horology, and learning as much as I can. Thanks for the help!
Itsalgud1 thanks man! Let me know if you have any questions. Kindest regards, Bill
Thanks for the clear imformative video! I learned so much about my pocketwatch and how it works! Very interesting. Lots of respect. I can listen to you all day.
Hey Tim, thanks man! I still have a lot to learn, but that's the fun part. Cheers, Bill
Thank you Bill really enjoyable look into the beating heart of our watches.
Hey Chilli! Thanks man! Take care, Bill
You definitely need a 3d printer!!! I would love to watch some more videos on watch mechanics with large components like you've made out of popsicle sticks :) and a 3d printer makes that super easy
Don't tempt me, DU... in the meantime, it's Popsicle sticks and cardboard cut-out. Take care, Bill
@@watchartsci Cyber-monday sales still going :) a cheap dpm printer was all i needed to start prototyping drone projects in-house. Best investment i ever made in a machine... watches excluded.. of course
Fabulous explanation. How to explain a complex subject with clearly flowing simplicity. Absolutely brilliant !! Thank you.
You're very welcome Neil! Take care, Bill
Great explanation! Kudos for the popsicle stick model, I was expecting a CAD 3D model animation but the sticks are way better!
Thanks Yokumato! A 3-D animation would probably been more accurate...but I have no CAD nor talents to make the necessary features...so I used popsicles sticks! (Sort of fun too!) Kindest regards, Bill
This an awesome video. Best explanation of the Co-axial I’ve seen. I loved the history behind it too. Thanks!
Hey User One, it's my pleasure! Take care, Bill
Thanks for helping me understand what is happening inside my new Seamaster. With my loupe, I can see l little of the activity and now have a better appreciation.
Hey Scott, congratulations on your new Seamaster! At some point hope to have an Omega with the George Daniels escapement. Kindest regards, Bill
I enjoyed the video.
Thanks to your video, I have the courage to try making a watch.
Jin, there are a lot of good videos on making a watch. The important part is getting the parts that go together. Best wishes in your success, Bill. (Also, check out our Facebook group, 'Pretentious Watchmakers' (facebook.com/groups/289111398611631) Take care, Bill
What an amazing video. Thank you so much for sharing.
My pleasure Ed. Take care, Bill
Thanks for the information I've looking a lot to really understand the co-axial and now it's clear
Glad it was helpfu, Richardl! Take care and be safe, Bill😷
This video makes my only day off so much entertained. 🤣
Great to hear Kinosaki! Take care, Bill
Bill - I just discovered your channel! Very interesting! Thanks for posting all this. I find the "precision" and "detail" of watches, especially mechanical watches, to be fascinating. The attention to detail plus the design is just amazing.
Hi Charles, I'm glad you liked it. Here's a new one that I just finished today you might like: ua-cam.com/video/s1dY2yNC12I/v-deo.html It looks at the new FP Journe Chronometre Resonance ... it includes dual remontoirs d'egalité as well as the resonance through dual balance wheels. Take care , Bill
A fabulous illustration of escapement’s thank you 🙏
Thanks Music Man! Take care, Bill
Rojer Smith has done presentations on the Co-Axial escapement many times and he tells the same story each time.
The argument for this escapement is lower friction than the standard escapement, so the need for lubrication is substantially lower. It's argued that a movement using this escapement can go much longer without maintenance and still keep consistent time.
Yes lower friction, which is why lower frequencies are used by top watchmakers! Take care, Bill
best improvised model ever! super, keep up good work
Hey Ignacy! Thanks man! Hate to see all those Popcicle sticks go to waste! Cheers, Bill
@@watchartsci I am not sure if you have mentioned it during the episode, but the co-ax escapement is by some considered solution that doesnt really solve any problems, as in Swiss lever escapement is already good enough. Notably the adoption of co-ax didnt happen in the major watch manufacturers aside from one... put it this way would be really surprised to see one of the watch houses you classified as high/exceptional horology to do a co-ax. Just my 5 cents
@@ignacyk4585 Yes, that's a point, but the fact that "everyone" doesn't adopt it may be as much about the cost to put it into production as it was because the Swiss lever was just as good. But you are correct in pointing out that it was not widely adopted. Take care, Bill
Interesting developments. Thank you.
My pleasure, NRS. Kindest regards, Bill
I don’t get why it took me until i reached your small channel for the basic point of “it divides the force would normally be exerted on 1 pallet onto multiple”. All the previous videos I’ve seen focus on one part at a time and purely in watchmaker jargon but don’t feel that they explain both parts together. Thank you.
Hey Friskjid jidoglu , thanks man! Take care, Bill
I have owned an Omega De Ville Co Axial since 2014 that I have worn every day as it is my only watch. It has never been serviced and keeps better time now than when I first bought it.
I have just watched this video and it’s the first time I have fully understood how the co axial movement works. The funny thing is I have been looking for a manual wind watch with a glass back and I think Nomos looks like a watch that might fit the bill, unless I was to get another Omega with a manual wind but fear the case thickness could well be an issue after the slim De Ville.
There's something about the Omega DeVille that I've always liked Peter. Take care, Bill
Let me make it VERY SIMPLE for everyone...
(1) The Co-axial escapement does not use inclined surfaces rubbing against one another to propel the pallet fork and hence balance wheel. (2) It used one set of pallets for locking and another set which is directly pushed when the first set unlocks. (3) This reduces friction and greatly reduces the lubrication needs.
That's all! Everything else is simply mechanical convenience and packaging efficiency to effect the above.
Hey Dwight ... let me make it very complete: Read pp. 242-252 and study Appendix III of George Daniels "Watchmaking" ... then you won't have to depend on videos with comments by those of us with dangerously little knowledge.Take care and stay safe, Bill 😷
Once a professor, always a professor. Thanks for the breakdown. My only hesitation with it is the thickness it creates in the movement, thus essentially fattening up any watch it goes in.
Hey Jay, good point about the width. I hadn't thought about that, and from the looks of it, that Omega Co-Axial 3500 looks pretty hefty. I wonder if they're working on a way to flatten it using Roger Smith single wheel co-axial? Cheers ,Bill
Just got the omega speedmaster racing 40mm. I Love it, it's my first luxury watch (my most expensive one beforehand was only about £300). It keeps time very well, a little fast but putting it crown down over night fixes that for the most part. Great video! Thanks for the in depth info.
Hey Peter, that's great! A storied watch! Does anything feel different in the tic-tock with the co-axial escapement? Cheers Bill
WatchArtSci I would say so! But the workmanship is truly amazing and I highly appreciate the work that goes into making it!
Peter, that's the best kind of watch: a high quality one that you appreciate and enjoy. What more could you ask for in a watch? Congratulations and have fun. Kindest regards, Bill
WatchArtSci agreed man, one day I'll be able to get another one, but I'm fully happy with this one, for now ;)
thank you for your very informative explanation of co-axial. Now I can explain why I just had to have my SpeedMaster co-axial and my new SeaMaster co-axial. I am not a vintage watch guy,rather I love technology and co-axial seems to be an amazing technology for sustaining the watches. Those 2 are my only Omegas but perhaps not my last purchases. Thanks again, this was very helpful.
Glad it was helpful, Verdell. I've got a couple of vintages, but really not into them either. I especially like mechanical innovations that do not involve silicon or electronics- just innovations like the Co-axial escapement. Take care, Bill
fantastic!thank you
Glad you liked it, Matteo!Take care and be safe, Bill 😷
@@watchartsci it was great to find your video because I'm going to get my omega coaxial moon phase next week, and I hope I'll understand it and enjoy it even better!
@@matteodifra Someday, Matteo, I hope to get a co-axial Omega myself! Congratulations, Bill
Any good mechanical clock must compensate for the weather. Would be interesting to hear how these funescapements do that. I still love the tuning fork design. But pure mechanics is still the real fun.
Thanks Timothy! You know, I don't remember reading or hearing anything about that issue, but of course it is a salient one. Kindest regards, Bill
WatchArtSci Hi Bill, Big fan of your channel. I appreciate your ability to make sense of these complicated movements. I would love to see you do a technical comparison of the ZDL oscillator vs. The Grand Seiko's Spring Drive. Either way, keep up the good work!
Hi Ben, I'm taking a watchmaking class now and am halfway through disassembling a Sellita SW210-1. (...didn't think it was a good idea to destroy an F.P. Journe movement... that'll come later....) Still need to learn more about co-axials too! Kindest regards, Bill
Thank u so much for the video.
Thanks Mehdi. It still needs work, but it is a start. Kindest regards, Bill
Thanks Bill.
Hey John, thanks man! Cheers, Bill
Brillant, Thanks Sir!
p.s. Alex Laing - Peace!!!
Peace to you as well Simeon/Alex (?). Take care, Bill
George Daniel also went to Rolex with the Co-Axl, but they did not like the Ideal of reducen the hZ from 28.800 to 25.500 swinfs pr hour. As far as I know Omega did not listen to much of him either and went on making the 28.800 swings still be the mainthing of there watch. And boy have many Omegawathes to begin with with the co-axl did not work right. A watchmaker told me in the beginning over 30 % was mailfunktion wthin 3 mounths. My own mail funktion after 5 days.
Thanks for the update André. Roger Smith has a Rolex with a GD co-axial ... from one of the demos George Daniels sent to Rolex. To be sure, the watchmakers took a while to spool up on the co-axial and bugs to be worked out on mass production. Cheers, bill
The best explanation on the internet.
Hey SB SB, thanks man! Cheers, Bill!
Interesting video well explained thank you.
Glad it was helpful, David! Take care and be safe, Bill😷
Do you know what kind of escapement Vostok uses in Amphibias? Do you know what alloy they use for their hairsprings?
Hi GeckoCkCkCk, as far as I know they use a lever escapements, but I don't know the materials they use in their hairsprings; even though they employ a Breguet overcoil in their shape. If you find out more, please let us know. Bill
Thanks for a visitation
Thanks for coming Alvin. Take care, Bill
We need innovation in watches. This is interesting.
Hey ChadatWork, yes we do need this kind of innovation. I prefer this type to solving things like anti-magnetism with silicon solutions. Cheers, Bill
@@watchartsci yes I like the new silicone escapements that are out now and Zenith Defy Labs has recently produced a new silicone oscillating system to replace the traditional one we've been using since the 1600s:
www.hodinkee.com/articles/zenith-defy-lab-oscillator-introducing
Great explanation on the coaxial mechanism! Although I do want to point out that Zenith's movement has nothing to do with quantum physics, at least from my experience as a phd student doing physics at Harvard. Zenith is still making great watches tho!
Thanks Xin Wei! I didn't think I said that Zenith's movement was related to quantum physics ... or even quantum computing, which is much closer to a topic that I better appreciate but do not understand.😉 Take care and be safe, Bill😷
@@watchartsci OMG I completely didn't expect you to notice my message! Thank you Bill, your channel has been a great inspiration!
I feel the explanation of this Co-axial escapement in this video is not totally correct. Here is my explanation. Out of the four pallets existing in this escapement, their roles are as follows. Look at the diagram at 18:22 in this video, as the others have a slightly different action.
There are two pallets whose role is destined for the locking mechanism of the escapement larger outer wheel and there are two other pallets whose role is destined to impulse the periodic rotation to the oscillating unit. Let us name the pallets as 1, 2, 3, 4 starting from the left to right.
1. The two locking pallets are 2 and 4 both of which engage alternately on the larger escapement wheel always going clockwise.
2. The two impulse pallets are 1 and 3. Impulse Pallet 1, (anticlockwise) on the oscillating/rotating sprung unit, engages with the large escapement wheel (clockwise) and goes with it AFTER pallet 2 unlocks it. The longer Impulse Pallet 3 (anticlockwise) engages with the central wheel (clockwise) and goes with it AFTER pallet 4 unlocks the larger escapement wheel.
That is basically it. I do not agree that there is no surface friction on these pallets as there is a slight radial sliding friction on all four of them WHEN THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DISENGAGEMENT. When they engage, there is no sliding friction as they would be in the right position before the respective touch occurs.
Note that while the large escapement wheel has an instant impulsive STOP rotary arresting locked action on pallet 2 and 4, the impulse action on both pallet 1 and 3 is a gentle engagement on the move. Hope that helps the newcomers to the Co-axial escapement.
Note that if this escapement is made with more teeth on the escapement wheel, it would not work as when impulse pallet 1 is moving anticlockwise it would hit the tips of the large escapement wheel. George Daniels had no choice in this as the angle of engagement of the radius of pallet 1 and the radius of the large engagement wheel is very critical for this co-axial escapement to work. I believe that pallet 1 engaging on the escapement wheel was an untidy afterthought, but still with eight teeth or seven teeth pallet one could engage and flies back without hitting the large escapement wheel.
I made a few wooden models of this co-axial escapement, it works, but I do consider pallet 1 as an untidy and unelegant mechanical arrangement which makes the co-axial escapement very UNSYMMETRICAL in its operation. It works, less sliding action, but rather mechanically unsymmetrical and untidy and needs great precision to make it work.
Thanks Carmel! You're right! That is an improved explanation. Kindest regards, Bill
Omega describes as a feature on the websites as unsprung, or free sprung balance. I can't figure out what this means. I haven't heard any descriptions of escapements mention this.
Matthew, the free sprung balances do not rely on the l length of the hairspring for adjustment. Instead, they rely on weights on the balance, and so have no regulator. For making adjustments, I prefer the sprung balances with a regulator; but for fine watchmaking, I look for free sprung.... and I don't mess with them! Cheers, Bill
Hi Bill, I'd love to send you a couple of pictures, but how? Please explain how I can do this.
Hi Oldvole, just attach them to an email and shoot them to me at williebegoode@att.net. Kindest regards, Bill
Amazing video
Hey thanks Marian! Kindest regards, Bill
Thank you Bill for your explaination. The co-axial escapement is quite a simple idea after all, with clear benefits. I'm glad it was industrialised by Nicolas Hayek, my favourite "character" in the watch history. Innovations on the field of regulating organs are particularly interesting. Between the Zenith Defy Lab elasticity, the "grasshopper" senfine and Dominique Renaud blades, I'd be curious to see real life applications in modern watches.
Hey Roman, thanks man! It seems that all genius arrives at simple solutions....that are only revealed through brilliant minds. For mechanical watchmaking, we are indeed in exciting times. Kindest regards, Bill
Bill, will be keen to hear your first impressions of the Zenith Defy Lab movement.. and perhaps the Seiko Spring Drive..
Hey algorithm007ify, from what I know of the Seiko Spring Drive, to some extent it's a quartz in sheep's clothing. While the generated electricity is mechanical, the oscillator is quartz. Not a bad thing and certainly ingenious. As for the Zenith movement, the quantum vibrations are the stuff of quantum physics, which post-dated my physics course. So, all I know about those good vibrations are what the Beach Boys tell me... At one time I delved into quantum programming, and it hurt my brain; so while not wholly unfamiliar with what phenomenon Defy Labs harnessed to produce the balance regulation, I'm mired in the fuzzy logic required to really understand it. Kindest regards, Bill
That’s why Omega is the best watchmaker ever existed
M, doesn't George Daniels get any credit? Take care, Bill😷
WatchArtSci ofc, I’m sorry I didn’t meant to remove any credits from George Daniels, he is a genius and a visionary, what I meant was that omega is the best watchmaker because he was the only sole company believed in him, payed for the patent and not making enough money because of the manufacture costs, but they insisted it and after 20 years they mastered that movement, and guess what? Now that the patent rights are expired, everyone now starting to want and use coaxial.. that’s why I said omega is the best, and I will never buy any watch that has a coaxial movement done by someone is not omega, for the very reverence I have towards George Daniels
@@CapitanTavish Yeah, and Daniels even made special examples of other watches with the coaxial escapement to show how efficient it was-Rolex among others. (I think that Roger Smith may have that Rolex...) Take care, Bill
So what are the advantages of the coaxial? Is it more accurate in the long run? Is the service interval of the entire movement extended? Maybe theoretically, maybe not in actuality. Does anyone have long-term positive experience?
The major advantage is less friction, smoother escapement, more consistent timing, Yehoshua. Extended service intervals, but fewer who can service them-Omega would need to be serviced by Omega or an Omega watchmakers who has access to the escapement parts required for repair. Take care and be safe, Bill😷
@@watchartsci Thank you. But what about the other parts of the movement? Wouldn't they still need the frequent attention, even though the escapement is in nice shape?
Co-Axial also means you are usually dependent on factory service ... increasing cost of ownership. None of the independent watchmakers in my town will work on a co-axial Omega.
Hey JR, you should never own one, then. That'll teach them to innovate! You are absolutely right; most watchmakers...actually watch technicians...love ETAs and other watches they've worked on without a stretch of or expansion of their skills. Here's a tip: Never, never, never buy a FP Journe Chronomètre à Résonance! Cheers, Bill
I knew that was coming ...because you mentioned it went off for service recently. But that is still my favorite in your collection. I liked today's show and the use of the graphics to illustrate the discussion. Am sure all your subscribers appreciate the good work you are doing.
It's not the going off for service that's rough...it's coming back with the bill!
I know that's the truth ... LOL...
This is true and this is why I am selling mine! Omega's complete service has gone up, over the years!
The explanation of only hitting every other teeth is misleading. There only needs to be half the number of teeth. if the other half remained, they'd be there doing nothing, except if you want to switch to the other teeth every time you service your watch. That may actually make sense to practically double the longevity of that part - that is, if you can get the geometry to work.
Which leads me to think... what if you have a tri-axial, quad-axial, etc. setup? Then you'd need a third, fourth, etc. fewer teeth. I'm sure that there's diminishing marginal returns with each additional wheel after wheel number X, but that wouldn't stop other watchmakers from creating a tri-axial escapement, right? Or, is that too similar and unoriginal to call it their own invention?
Hey KK, that's a great question! Here's a demonstration that does what I was trying to do about 100x better! ua-cam.com/video/NMWpT-MniFo/v-deo.html Let me know if that answers your question. Kindest regards, Bill
Good discussion, but I don’t see any real improvement, just a difference. And in practical implementation it hasn’t proved as accurate as the traditional pallet and escapement. Omega co-axial movements are no where near as accurate as Rolex, Blancpain, Glashutte Original, Patek, etc. Have had two Omega METAS and they both exceed the +5 in real use by a second or two a day. Rolex seem to easily beat that in real world use. Additionally, for some reason the Omega co-axial implementation, not sure if this is inherent or just their implementation, are VERY thick, making their co-axial watches much less wearable. And even with a lower beat rate Omega doesn’t match the new Rolex movements in time of operation using a higher beat rate (not sure that is all that important, but run time has now become a big advertising point).
It may come down to less friction, but I am not certain, Cos. Take care, Bill
I really don't wanna be that guy but its co-axial, not co-axel/axl. Nonetheless very informative video and these animations are very good!
Fun fact: George Daniels made the co-axial escapement as an escapement that did not need lubercation, but in practice it always gets lubercated.
Hey T-devil, you're not that guy ... co-axial is correct. Cool fact about the lube not required but given. Cheers, Bill
Thanks for the explanation about the coaxial escapement Bill.
I'm a big fan of it mainly due to George Daniels story around it and of course for its effectiveness in terms of functioning.
BTW, recommend anyone interested in the theme to watch The Watchmaker's Apprentice movie.
Another good source is at www.wsj.com/video/why-george-daniels-watches-sell-for-millions/4AAC4BB9-A945-4903-81A8-8CDB2A6A47E6.html
Last but not least Sotheby's will be running an important Daniels' themed auction today.
Best
BTW, Daniels' SPACE TRAVELLERS' with a co-axial escapement great grandfather has been sold for 3,196,250 GBP on today's auction ;)
Hey Amintas! I saw that story about Daniel's watch selling for $4,336,656! I'm thinking that maybe FP Journe's watches may be the Picassos of the watch world. Daniels and Dufour already are! There may be a Parmigiani in my near future--not as stunning as yours, but nice... Cheers, Bill
Can you find me a link of how they make these parts ? Omg they are so precise and tiny
Kaveman, try searching "Omega Co-axial production" in your search engine. Good hunting! Bill
Love your channel. Love your explanation. But I'm not going to buy one of your popsicle stick watches!
Even if I gave you our special discount? Cheers, Bill
Nice.
Thanks..
If this technology is so efficient, why don’t Omega watches have long power reserves? I don’t believe Omega has a watch with 70 hours power reserve.
Also why does Omega use silicon hairsprings, Rick. Take care, bill
@@watchartsci They use a silicon hairspring because it is superior to metals in numerous ways. Better power reserve. Totally antimagnetic. Much more durable. Etc.
@@rickjason215 Not as accurate as a quartz watch. If you're going to use silicon, why not go all the way? Take care, Bill
Is that a Bovet watch you're rocking?
Good eye Mohamed! It's a Bovet 1822 19Thirty Fleurier. Take care, Bill
@@watchartsci You have great taste my friend, keep up the good work I love the channel :)
With the revolutionary Zenith Defy Lab oscillator, the co-axial is very _dépassé._ If you are not at all interested in incredible accuracy, then my previous statement means nothing at all. It is all a matter of taste and what your priorities are. I do have a co-axial planet ocean, but since I'm an accuracy maniac -- only within the realm of purely mechanical watches (meaning no electromagnetism or integrated circuit involved) -- I lustfully hunger after the phenomenal Zenith technology.
Hey Lloyd, the ZDL oscillator is fantastic, but it doesn't make the co-axial dépassé; any more than quartz (or more recently the digital smart watch) makes everything in mechanical watchmaking dépass;!! Both the ZDL oscillator and co-axial would be featured in a discussion of innovations in mechanical watches as well as Agenhor's new AgenGraphe; which may overwhelm both the ZDL oscillator and co-axial!! Thanks for your comments, and if you have a good source for more information of the ZDL oscillator, it might be time for a video on it and some other work by Defy Labs!! Kindest regards, Bill
I am with you in the quest for improvement in precision, hence accuracy, in purely mechanical watches. Zenith, however is way outside the reach of many people. I am impressed with the SWATCH produced movements Tissot has been using in their chronometers in the last few years. With these, Tissot swept the 2015 Chronometer held in Le Locle, Switzerland. The elitists contend SWATCH chronometers are ruining haute horology. I see it as the Swiss finally responding to those of us who want high precision at affordable prices. My Tissot Luxury Powermatic 80 Chronometer was two seconds slow by atomic time for the month of September. This from a watch that retailed for $1075 on a leather strap.
+Robert Williams I didn't know about the Tissot. Thank you for that! I'll have to look into that brand more closely (as into a few others I suppose). Cheers!
Addendum: It has been mentioned by some 'experts' in the industry that eventually the Zenith Defy Lab technology will trickle down (be adopted/adapted) by other watch manufacturers and be available in watches below the $5000 range. Wait and see...
What about the grand Seiko spring drive. That seems interesting too
I've been reading a little about it and looks a really interesting technology - I guess there are polar views in that it is not a traditional mechanical watch as electronics are involved, but on the flip, it's a magnetic braking system applied to a mechanical watch. But it's mechanically powered.
I've always been a fan of Seiko watches and I'm planning on adding a spring drive to my collection at some stage. I'm just about to go for a Seamaster which is why I watched this video and subscribed.
All the best :)
I would like to make one ordinary mechanical watch by myself. Can you help me out?
Hi Srini M. Here's an online school that will guide you: www.timezonewatchschool.com/WatchSchool/ kindest regards, Bill
It is a great shame that such a wonderful thing is enjoyed by so few people. I really hope the patent runs out and it becomes free for all as it always should have been
Hey Shock Wave, both Omega and Roger Smith watches use the co-axial escapement. I'm not sure if it's a patent issue so much as it is fitting the co-axial escapement into an ongoing pattern. There's a new Chinese escapement by Tan Zhua called the "di-axial" that's interesting: www.gphg.org/horlogerie/en/watches/di-axial-escapement
Take care and be safe, Bill 😷
The whole reason I'm crazy for Omegas.
Hey Lemtem!! Sounds like you've got a co-axial! Which Omega do you have? Kindest regards, Bill
Hi Bill! I've recently acquired a Seamaster Aqua Terra with the 8900 movement. Lovely watch and wonderful movement.
Lemtem, that is my favorite Omega!! Congratulations! Kindest regards, Bill
10:44 the 3d model of the coaxial escapement
Hi Jin, thanks for the information. Take care and be safe, Bill😷
Hi, what's your favorite watch movement/model ? Very informative video. I scored a Omega professional for 2000$ back in 2007.
Zalem, I have several. Just about any hand-wound movement from H. Moser et Cie, the Parmigiani PF110 (in the Hebdomadaire), F.P. Journe Chronomètre Souvrain Calibre 1304 , Lang & Heyne Caliber VI , Omega movements with the co-axial escapement, the Unitas/ETA 6498, Jaquet 736, (La Joux-Perret 736.xxx), Rolf Lang Dresden Canaletto Précieuse, any hand-wound movement from Kari Voutilainen, Roger Smith or Philippe Dufour, Rolex caliber 7040, and the Bovet calibre 15BM04. My very favorite right now is: Fiona Krüger's Chaos 1 designed by Agenhor; favorite chronograph is AgenGraphe AGH-6361 by Agenhor. Kindest regards, Bill
I think I'll have to sketch, maybe model both swiss lever and Daniels' coax to properly understand. 😅
Václav, that is a very helpful idea. Take care, Bill
I am told that when one takes them apart they will not go back together ??
The co-axial component then are the escape wheels. They do emanate from a common centre.
I am certain your run-of-the-mill watchmaker who is used to working on conventional movements would find this to be true. It's also true of the double-hairspring movements of H. Moser et Cie and just about every tourbillon. Like Rolexes, Zenith, Patek Philippe and every other in-house movement watch, a watchmaker needs specific training for those special configurations.
Crobular, yes, the co-axial is part of the escape mechanism. By common" centre," do you mean the balance wheel arbor or the escape wheel arbor? Or do you mean the power source controlled by the escape mechanism? Or something else? Kindest regards, Bill
Hello, I am wondering where you got the animation and if you know where I could find a CAD model of the co-axial escapement. thanks
Hi C. Aper. I made the animation beginning around 13:34 from four images. I numbered them 1-4 and then just lined them up in the video app. I do not know where to find a CAD model of the co-axial escapement ... and if you find one, let me know. Take care, Bill😷
@@watchartsci thanks
Hey Bill, what about the Audemars escapement? Any opinion?
Heiner Klaus Tell me about it - I sold my AP a couple years ago. Thanks Bill
I’m just getting into Watches in understanding them and I would love it if you could do a review on this Zenith L Primero my father gave me, where can I email you pictures?
Here's a link, Judo that should fill you in nicely: monochrome-watches.com/zenith-50-years-of-el-primero-anniversary-set-review-price/ Take care and be safe, Bill
Can anyone help my find information on the escapement concept he mentions on the end that utilizes properties of quantum physics?
Does anyone know who this guy Jake Gibbons is? He asked about the vibration characteristics in the Zenith. If anyone runs across him, he can find the answer to his query here: journal.hautehorlogerie.org/en/zeniths-quantum-leap/. Thanks, Bill
Thank you very much for your video. I watched it twice. I still wish I bought a Rolex rather than 2 Omega's. My Omega's are too thick i guess due to this maybe superior movement. I don't really understand it at all But what I do understand is that i spent $10,000 on 2 watches that do not sit perfectly center on my 7.25 inch wrist and that Omega makes a very ugly clunky stainless steel bracelet on the SMPc300 and an awful butterfly clasp on my Aqua Terra. Also do i really need 1.5 Tesla magnetic protection? I may just sell these hyped up Omega's and go back to Grand Seiko high accuracy quartz or a Hi-Beat movement. I love that you not own an Omega. Want to buy mine?
Hey Steve, maybe look at some H. Mosers and Parmigiani Fleurier's ... great deals for great watches and no "premiums" for superior watches. Take care and get your shots if you haven't, Bill😎
I watched a coaxial escapement animation at half speed to better understand it and then I watched this video on fast forward
Sounds like a good idea HB... Cheers, Bill
Bill I know how a watch works ,, but if I didn't this would just CONFUSE me . Please go back to reviewing and such .
Sorry to have confused you...in all caps...Cheers, Bill
My first "high-end" watch was an Omega SeaMaster 300 Master Co-Axial. I bought it for one of several reasons and one was the co-axial movement. However, last month I took that Omega and a Rolex YachtMaster and traded them for a 2010 black dial steel Daytona. I like the Daytona better. I liked the idea of having a co-axial movement watch, and someday I'll probably get another SeaMaster, but not the 300 it was a bit too big. Is your model Swiss Made?
Hi Ryvr, thanks for sharing that experience with a Seamaster. I'm a big Planet Ocean fan; so that would be on my co-axial short list, but recently I discovered a co-axial DeVille, which is more my style. Aren't all Omegas Swiss made? Kindest regards, Bill
Omega may be all Swiss made, not sure. I think those kind of things are kept very secret which is why I hope the Swiss government institutes laws such as the U.S. federal trade commission who brought Shinola to task about its Made in U.S.A. label, or should I say mislabel.
Recently the Swiss changed the rules about what could be labeled "Swiss Made". They can import only certain parts I think or a certain percent of parts. I know a lot of cases were forged in China, but how that counts, I just don't know.
Right they have, but it's not enough. The Swiss need to embrace complete "Swiss Made-ness." They are in danger of losing what makes Made in Switzerland special, unique, and high quality. People will only go so long with being fooled.
Bottom line, my opinion, no short cuts allowed, if it is labeled Swiss Made it MUST be one hundred percent Swiss Made. It's how it works in the U.S..
Not a clue!
What clue do you need Bob? Cheers, Bill
Thanks for this, however, it might be a good idea for a script to have been written before the film camera was turned on, and the script should use correct terms, not " meaningless" expressions, such for example, " The main barrel gives a kick to the oscillation wheel " all of which is imprecise English language, which is used to describe a PRECISE engineering energy release. Get the words right, rehearse them, and then turn on the camera please, and one last point, human hands, should be kept out of camera, either to adjust the spectacle position on ones nose, or to describe a mechanical procedure, please use words, NOT hand signals.
Thanks for the effort, please lets see a more focussed film the next time.
Anthony, you are so right! I spent all my time trying to clearly understand the concept that I got tangled up. Thanks for the tips! Kindest regards, Bill
Very confusing explanation. Appreciate the attempt, but as an educator myself you should have prepared better in advance. Your pacing is variable, you forget the correct words, and when you try to explain concepts sometimes you get it wrong, as others have pointed out already.
Lucas, stop with the schoolmarmish lectures. I'm sure your pickiness emerges from your own experiences. If you don't like the video; ok, but drop the pretense assuming you know about some perfect video. Take care, Bill
Worst attempt to explain a watch movement EVER. This was simply awful
Ok Wakajumba, help me out. I'll re-do it, but I need to know where I went off the mark. Thanks, Bill
Hi Bill sorry, but you are not good at imparting information, you are not alone in this fault. However, it may be best to get someone else to intemperate your evident wisdom. Sorry ,mate!
Hi Paul, I got the information from Daniel's book on Watchmaking, but may have been better off with direct quotes. So help me out here. What parts should be better clarified? Thanks, Bill
Hi again Bill, must apologise for my remarks (maybe, too many years at sea trying to impart knowledge into youngsters that I suspected would die due to the lack of directly imported knowledge). We are all different and one should always respect that. So, keep on keeping on. Fair winds at your back and calm seas ahead. Mate.
@@paulsteele6120 What? I'm not a youngster? No worries, kindest regards, Bill
Get to the point !
I wish every point was that simple Grengren....Check out pp 162-3 of George Daniels book, 'Watchmaking' and that will help. Take care, Bill
I had such hopes when I started watching this. Big disappointment.
Gustav, it'd really help if you explained why. Big disappointment for not explaining....
Man, you sound so confused!
You spend majority of your clip at failed attempt of explaining the merits of the coaxial escapement. But you entirely miss the point!
George Daniels himself manages to do that brilliantly in under two minutes. So repeat his words like a parrot, or spare us.
However your stories from behind the curtains are quite entertaining so stick only to them.
Hi Mic602, sorry about that. I was trying to make a cardboard model and failed miserably to make a coherent sentence. Now that I'm halfway through my Level 1 Watchmaking class, I appreciate it much better and I have George Daniels' book, 'Watchmaking" ; I'll use it too. Kindest regards, Bill
Sooooo sloooooooooo
Sooooooo unclear Bussi. What are you trying to say? Take care, Bill