back to top

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

As an aBlogtoWatch guest, Hugh Taylor from (a pre-owned watches and luxury goods dealer in the UK) once again interviews their in-house master watchmaker, Mickey Nolan, as he proceeds to explain and dissemble three different movements that have all found homes within Omega Seamaster watches. Like many timepieces which have been produced for a number of years, the movements inside those watches evolve and change. Here, we go inside of the Omega caliber 1120, 2500, and 8500 movements to understand what they are about, how Co-Axial escapements matter, and what Mickey the watchmaker has to say about them.

Several Fridays ago, while Twitter accounts across South East England ticked away with trademark Anglian wisecracks about how an unheard-of-in-these-parts 4.2-magnitude earthquake had toppled an alarming number of wheelie bins — “We will rebuild!” — Owen (the photo wizard) and I nestled into Mickey’s watchmaking workshop.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

We were at Xupes HQ in a peaceful town on the fringe of the northern backwoods of London. This was our second session with Mickey, and we weren’t back just for a chinwag. Last time around he’d mentioned the Omega movements when mulling over the Rolex 3135. Well, we wanted to dig a little deeper this time, so we took three textbook Omegas with us — three generations of Seamasters: one of the old standard sort with a calibre 1120; an early Planet Ocean with a 2500 co-axial; and a latest generation in-house one with an 8500 co-axial. These are the Omega Seamaster references 2231.50.00, 2200.51.00, and watches.

We were after his view on the evolution of the Omega movement since the turn of the millennium. We wanted to see with our own non-horologist eyes what the fabled co-axial calibre is all about, and try to figure out if it’s as game-changing as the Omega tribe preaches. We had a time window of just under two hours to strip them down and put them under the crosshairs. No plain sailing given the differences between the movements, not to mention the time it takes to pull them apart. But having served three and a half years with Omega’s Regent Street watchmaking team, Mickey was the right fit for the gig.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

Left to right: a 2002 Seamaster with an 1120 calibre; a 2008 Seamaster Planet Ocean with a 2500 calibre with co-axial escapement; a 2013 Seamaster Planet Ocean with an in-house 8500 calibre with co-axial escapement.

Hugh Taylor: Hello Mickey. I suppose we’d better kick off by asking you what you are wearing on your wrist today?


Mickey Nolan: What I’m wearing today is a Patek Philippe Aquanaut.

Hugh Taylor: Nice. Do you not own any Omegas?

Mickey Nolan: Yeah, I’ve got a Speedmaster Moonwatch, with a Calibre 861, manual wind. Nice movement.

Hugh Taylor: Good of you to strap it on for today.

Mickey Nolan: Haha yeah! I totally forgot. I was rushing this morning.

Hugh Taylor: Fair enough. Last time we met, when showing me how the Rolex 3135 movement worked, you suggested it would be a great idea to move onto an Omega next. Why’s that?

Mickey Nolan: Well, the 3135 is one of the best movements out there, as far as mass-produced quality movements are concerned. I mean, sure, high-end players like Patek Philippe and A. Lange & Söhne might be hand-finishing their movements and making them more complicated, but those watches are works of art, and they have the hefty price tags to go with them.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

A Rolex is highly impressive, and it’s a real tough customer: it is not aiming at the same market as those brands. In the Rolex market, i.e. the popular mechanical watch market, it will forever be one of the all-time greats. Then, in my opinion, another fantastic contender would have to be Omega. Omega is clearly trying to go head to head with Rolex, and to be fair to them, they’ve had a pretty good crack at it. Introducing the co-axial in 1999 was clearly them making a play for top spot. So I guess it seemed like a logical follow-on.

Hugh Taylor: Right. So, today, you’re going to show us what a co-axial is and whether it or the 3135 is better?

Mickey Nolan: Not really. I mean, I’ll compare the Omega 1120 with the 3135 because they’re both a similar set up. But the co-axials are completely different, so we’ll take a look at those, and how they’ve improved, or not, and where I can I’ll give you my opinion.

Hugh Taylor: What do you mean by a similar set up?

Mickey Nolan: Well, they’re both Swiss lever escapements. I showed you the Swiss lever escapement in the 3135. If you remember, that’s the bit that transfers the energy from the mainspring (the powerhouse of the movement) to the swinging wheel or balance wheel. The balance is the part that controls the rhythm of the beats; it stops the gear train spinning too fast or slow.

The escapement is a smart little piece of kit; we’ll take a look at it in a minute. Basically, it’s a spinning wheel with little club-shaped teeth that are designed in a way that they drive a fork, back and forth. Each time the fork is moved, the other end of it, or the handle, if you like, gives a little push to the balance wheel. This keeps the balance wheel moving. The contact between the teeth and the pallet is what makes the ticking sound in a watch. This contact is one of the areas where the movement spends a decent amount of energy. In the classic Swiss lever set up, the teeth slide along the prongs of the pallet, which causes friction or resistance; in the co-axial, though, the teeth just push the tips of the prongs, so there’s much less friction.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

Hugh Taylor: That sounds logical. So, does it work then?

Mickey Nolan: The co-axial idea was rejected by loads of brands, probably Rolex too. I mean, it’s got some logic in it, yeah, and it promises to do away with oiling, which would be a dream for watchmakers. But the lever escapement has been around for 250 years for a reason. I mean, it’s simple and it works well.

I think Omega just wanted to set themselves apart, so they jumped at the chance of having an advantage. The co-axial took a shedload of work to fit in. Was it worth it? Well, it’s excellent, don’t get me wrong, and it’s different, but whether it’s better or not, we’ll have to let you decide. I mean, I suppose, what they have done is taken themselves from being a fixed second best to people not knowing what’s better. I guess, maybe it was a good call then.

Other high-end brands have tweaked their escapements to reduce the friction too, like Audemars Piguet, for example. Then there’s Breguet, who use a different setup altogether. And more recently Girard Perregaux’s Constant Force. So it was brave of Omega to have a go.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

Hugh Taylor: OK, great. So can you start off by comparing the 1120 and the 3135 as you suggested?

Mickey Nolan: Sure. The 1120 is a modified ETA movement. It’s used by a bunch of top brands like Tag Heuer or even IWC. Omega just swapped out a couple of bits and finished it in their style.

It’s a close call between the 1120 and the 3135. I mean, they produce similar results as far as performance is concerned, and you’re probably not going to notice much difference. Under the microscope, there are a couple of small differences that set the 3135 apart: like the Microstella screw system, which is a more accurate and efficient way of adjusting the balance than the Omega version; and there’s the free-sprung balance in the 3135 which is definitely more efficient. Again, if you remember, it’s trickier to make, but it’s not restricted like standard movements — it’s used by loads of high-end brands. Actually, Omega upgraded to the free-sprung balance for the 2500.

There are loads of other minor differences as well, of course, but other than those, we’re just splitting hairs, really. I’d happily own either.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

Omega Caliber 1120

Hugh Taylor: And how does the finishing stand up?

Mickey Nolan: Yeah, the Omegas look smart. I’d say they’re pretty much on the same level as Rolex.

Hugh Taylor: So, from being hot on Rolex’s heels, Omega decided to do something radical for the 2500. How did it work out?

Mickey Nolan: Yeah it was a smart move, but it took a lot to get it all together. It took 6 to 10 years to work the co-axial into the 1120, because the co-axial escapement requires considerably more space. But it worked out OK after a few upgrades although, again, the difference in performance is minimal because we are already talking about high-performance movements.

The main problem for Omega was trying to convince people of the benefits of the co-axial because it involves sitting them through an engineering lesson. Not a big seller, you know. So, eventually, they just bumped up the warranty from the standard two years to three years, and the newer ones are four years. It’s like a kind of proof. But then, they also dropped the beats per hour down in the 2500, so that could explain the longer service interval.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

Omega Caliber 2500 – We’d recommend comparing it to the 1120 in the image just above.

Hugh Taylor: Why’s that?

Mickey Nolan: They dropped the beats per hour down from 28,800 to 25,200. 28,800 is a pretty common rate for most watches, so it was a bit surprising when they dropped it down. The co-axial escapement can afford to beat at a lower frequency because of its design. But in a Swiss lever, a lower beat per hour is associated with less accuracy. It’s on a microscopic scale, obviously, but the seconds hand might be a fraction more jumpy. Take the Zenith El Primero movement that’s so popular, it beats at 36,000. Sure, it’s not guaranteed that more beats means better movements but, generally, it’s what most brands seem to be shooting for.

Anyway, one’s thing is sure, less beats means less wear on parts. So, if you knock a few thousands beats per hour off your total, you might not need to service it as often. I’m not saying that Omega are compensating because the co-axial theory doesn’t work, but it’s clearly difficult to get it spot on, and you’re not going to notice much difference, you know. So, yeah, maybe they played it safe. Maybe they dropped it down to make more of a difference on service times. The newer 8500 still runs at the lower 25,200 too.

Hugh Taylor: So are they noticeably less accurate?

Mickey Nolan: No, not at all. If it’s been serviced right, then you could get a variance of, say, two seconds per day. They still pass the COSC tests without any problems – COSC standard is from -4 to +6 seconds per day. That range is a bit too wide and so we always fine-tune it a lot better than that.

Hugh Taylor: OK, and what about the 8500, is that a step up then?

Mickey Nolan: It’s got a fair bit going for it, yeah. They went through a bit of progression to get to the 8500. They had A, B, C, and D versions of the 2500. Again, they’re all fine, but they were tweaking little bits to get the co-axial working in harmony. In the D version, the escapement is similar to the 8500.

The 8500 is almost completely an in-house movement. Some parts come from other companies like ETA, but all the companies are under the Swatch Group umbrella. The 8500 costs more, but it has some good improvements.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

Omega Caliber 8500

Hugh Taylor: Such as?

Mickey Nolan: It is a new movement and they put some time into the finishing as well – which is probably why they went and put a display back on it. A big tweak was the new rotor; it harnesses energy in both directions so it winds faster and doesn’t need to be wound as often. It’s nearly silent too. Some parts are made of silicon as well, like the hairspring and the balance, which means they can’t get magnetised and they work with less friction, hence allowing for the use of even less lubricants in the escapement (more on that in a bit).

This time, they designed the 8500 around the escapement, as opposed to the escapement being designed to fit the movement. So they could afford to make it (the escapement) larger and add a couple of extra bits. The movement is bigger now too, so the watch sits a bit chunkier on the wrist.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

Omega Caliber 8500

Furthermore, the escapement now takes its energy from two mainsprings instead of one, so it’s got a longer, 60 hour power reserve – even longer than a lot of Rolexes, actually. Then there are the barrel arbors that are DLC (diamond-like carbon) coated. I think, at one point, Omega had called some of their watches back because the arbors were wearing out, but now, they’re damage resistant. Oh, and last but not least, the balance bridge now has two arms like the Rolex 3135.

There are loads of smaller improvements, too, that you don’t really notice, like the jewels being made from a new material that has less friction.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

Hugh Taylor: So it sounds like it’s a good upgrade then. And how are the different watches to work on?

Mickey Nolan: Yeah, it is, but the others are still good watches too. I like the 1120 as it is a good movement and the Swiss lever escapements are easier to deal with. A lot easier.

(Mickey is removing the escapement of the 8500.)

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

Omega has been very forward-thinking in its use of silicon parts in this price bracket, placing it alongside the likes of Ulysse Nardin, Patek Philippe, and Breguet. There are reported plans to use silicon in all future calibres.

I think the co-axial is a lot more sensitive. Omega use oil on it George Daniels (inventor of the co-axial) didn’t. And it’s a microscopic amount, I mean you actually have to use a microscope. If it’s not correctly oiled, you won’t get your four years out of it. The amount of oil we’re using is so minute that it makes the application a rather difficult job. If you use too much oil, it’s going to stop the watch, or it’s going to run off the back of the teeth and stop the watch. If you put too little oil, it is going to result in stoppage as well. It has to be perfect, and it has to be on a certain spot on the teeth too: right in the middle. There’s a lot more to it than the conventional Swiss lever.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

Omega Caliber 2500

The other thing about co-axial escapements: taking the balance out is a nightmare! You can’t just pull it out. If someone doesn’t know what they’re doing, it’s – phew! – you know, it’s not like a conventional one, they’re never getting it in again. Even if you do everything right, putting it back in is tricky as well: you have to get the impulse pin into the fork and lever, and then you have to twist the movement.

The first time I did it, it took me about and hour and a half just to put it in. You’re trying to get the hairspring and the balance in, you have to twist it around and then get it into the right place. The Swiss lever just slots in.

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

Omega Caliber 1120

The good thing about the co-axial now is that the hairspring cannot be tweaked to get it concentric or flat, which is great for us watchmakers because we don’t have to mess around with it. We’re also not allowed to change the lift in the lever, something we can do in the Swiss lever escapement — bring them up by a couple hundredths of a millimetre. Each lift will reduce or increase the amplitude. But there’s too much going on with these, there’s three different lifts and it’s too difficult, we have to just change the lever and the escape wheel if needs be — sometimes, the lever isn’t correct. It’s expensive, but the customer isn’t going to take the hit (financial). If the distance between the tooth of the escape wheel and the lift of the lever is either too great or too little, we just change it, as per what Omega recommends.

Hugh Taylor: Right, we have established that working on a Co-Axial is more complicated. What are the common issues you see with any of these three watches?

Mickey Nolan: Well, when you take the automatic off the 1120 and the 2500, because the winding wheels are constantly working, the oil congeals and it gets quite dirty. If that drips down into the escapement it’s going to need a service. This is one of the main sources of issues with these movements. The automatic sits very close over the escapement. This is one of the first things I look at. The 8500 has only been out for a few years, so we still haven’t had many back in for servicing, although they’re starting to come in now.

– End of interview –

Watchmaker Compares Omega Seamaster Timepieces With Caliber 1120, 2500, & 8500 Movements ABTW Interviews

By this point, it was well gone seven on a Friday evening. For us, with an eye and a half on the weekend, the last light enthusiasm for discussing watches had flickered out. But I left for home chewing over memories of our session, trying to work out my conclusions. As far as I could see, there was no real winner between the watches I had been looking at today and the Rolex we did a few weeks back. My gut said Mickey felt the same.

When I went over my notes a couple of days later, the first question I’d asked Mickey rang in my mind. Yeah, I was joking, but maybe asking him what he was wearing was actually the crux for me. Do we really need expensive functional mechanical watches these days? Surely, it’s either a work of art or it’s digital? Yeah, I’d definitely buy either; these are top pieces of kit, the result of decades of ferocious inter-brand engineering warfare. But I might save my pennies for a hand-made one… Perhaps I’ll ask Mickey to open one up first.

Written by Hugh Taylor, editor of Xupes Magazine; photography by Owen Davies, Xupes.



Disqus Debug thread_id: 3991172263

  • NickBurks

    As a self confessed Omega fanboy, I loved this article. But, my takeaway is this: The new movement is more complicated, and more advanced in terms of materials used, but offers no advantages over the easily serviceable Rolex movement. Someone change my opinion please!

  • hautejalapeno

    Thanks for this article, I enjoyed reading it. The 8500 is a stand out movement. For my money (literally) it is the best finished and most advanced workhorse movement of any mainstream watchmaker. Has any manufacture put as much time and effort into their movements recently as Omega, all of which has been done with some risk. I enjoy seeing the evolution of Omega movements in an industry that at time seems at times to stunt innovation. Is the 8500 equal or better than the 3135, only time will tell, but if anyone wishes to give me a watch housing a 3135 if happily do a comparison 🙂

  • hautejalapeno

    NickBurks I think you are spot on in your assessment Nick. Omega had to do something to make it stand out, and that was always going to result in a more complicated movement, one both of us admire. The less complex rolex movement is also more easily serviced because watchmakers have had over a generation to get to know it. If the same occurs for the 8500 then familiarity will ease servicing in the future.

  • MarcusMak

    NickBurks 2 weeks ago, i made friend w/a local watchmaker. He told me his two most sought after watches are Omega X33 & Calibre 9300 based Speedmaster. He complimented that Co-axial movement implemented in Omega is way advance than most movements in “mass” production. That’s i agreed with him, the key primary reason why George Daniels designed the co-axial is to eliminate of friction between the pallet and gear &c promote efficiency. But selling the idea & benefits of co-axial to general consumer is tough. Omega hyped the calibre 9300 a lots when they were launched, because they want to catch up Rolex in the quest of creating high volume, good movement watches (ofcoz up pricing as well). very good article!

  • MarcusMak

    hautejalapeno most complains arises that Cal 8500 & 9300 are too thick, Omega is rumored to work on a thinner version.

    From a main-stream movement, you were spot-on as Omega has proven itself to be the most advance movement. And Omega needed this distinction to compete w/Rolex.  Roger W Smith in his interview said George Daniels took the co-axial escapement design to various manufacturers likes Rolex & Zenith, but the swiss did not quite understand the benefits nor able to pronounced it. He found Omega and was introduced in Cal 2500 series, but was known to have problems. Omega took a brave move by designing the co-axial escapement from ground up, this change the history for Omega as well as pricier Omega to obtain today.

  • Mike V

    Another great interview!

    I love Omegas but I’m not sold on the co-axial. It appears Omega is performing a balancing act between complicating it’s movement on one hand and reducing it’s operating rate to 25,200 on the other. Time will tell whether the co-axial movement is endeared by it’s owners as much as the 1120 especially when they find out how much the service charge will cost for the more complicated co-axial.

  • Grinnie Jax

    Love the look of the movement, but considering there is no actual benefit, only much more complicated and expensive servicing, – makes me think all that shout Omega produced was just to catch up with Rolex fame. Anyway, I really liked the finishing, maybe even more than that of Rolex. Thanks for the article!

  • DanW94

    Great interview.  It’s cool to gain some insight into these movements from the experts who work on them.


    NickBurks Well the main advantage of the 8500 is that it does not need to be lubricated as often and therefore requires less servicing which will in turn give you prolonged accuracy and a lower cost of ownership. I am not a watchmaker so I do not care what is easier to service, I want something that is more accurate and durable

  • Umer Waziri

    Jaime Cee something worth looking in your down time U0001f44dU0001f3fb

  • Empirecity

    I’ve owned both the 2500C and 3135; both incredibly accurate, but the 2500C stopped within two years and required a full service.  The 3135 is still going strong after about 13 years.  I know that’s a pretty small sample size, but in reality I see so much R & D involved with new and improved movements and there are very minimal gains in accuracy and durability, if any.   I also see the trade offs as not really worth it, when you consider the lower beat rate and thicker case sizes.   Long story short for me..  yeah, I’m a Rolex fanboy  🙂

  • sparksjls

    pcdunham nice.

  • nateb123

    NickBurks I think the article needs to be read with the understanding that one thing matters to Mickey, and that is how easy the watch is to service.  Yes, the Omega 8500 is harder to service for an independent watchmaker but the guys at Omega’s service centres are pretty good with them.

    What makes the 8500 more impressive are things that Mickey doesn’t really seem concerned with.  The silicon balance and escapement mean your watch doesn’t start behaving erratically only a few months into owning one because you didn’t realize your alarm clock or cellphone’s magnetic field is messing with it.  That’s huge.  It means way fewer warranty issues and prevents the majority of the dreaded “I just spent 5 grand on a watch and now it doesn’t work” experiences that turn customers off a brand altogether.

    The other thing to be aware of is that these escapements are only being developed by one brand and haven’t been around that long.  In terms of development, the Swiss level is as good as it’s going to get.  If a technology only introduced in 99 is already as good or better than one that’s been around for 250 years, you can bet which one is going to see further improvements in only another few years.

    Omega made a smart bet, but the 8500 is still just the beginning.  I can’t wait for a slimmer co-axial myself, since I love a lot of their designs but the 8500s and 9300s sit stupidly high on the wrist currently.

  • Sam Anderson

    nateb123 NickBurks Totally agree with what you’ve said. And yes, a thinner iteration would be a huge improvement.

  • NickBurks

    MSTART NickBurks I don’t know if it need less servicing, I think that remains to be seen. But even if it lasted a year long without service would it be worth it? I certainly appreciate everything about the 8500, and hope to own one soon, but it doesn’t seem to have longer service intervals. If it does, that could be a product of the reduced bph-which is another strike against this movement.

  • NickBurks

    nateb123 NickBurks Perfect! This is the reply I was waiting for. I definitely appreciate that they use newer materials, which keep the piece running more accurately.


    NickBurks I have several pieces that are 28’800 vph and don’t see any negative impacts of the Omega’s i have that run at 25,200, my hour vision is 7 hears old at this stage and yet to be serviced and is running at an average of +1 sec per day. My old El Primero has a much higher VPH (36’000) and was never that accurate. In terms of servicing I have had to service one of my 4 Omega’s so far which was an A.T 2500 after 8 years so the recommended Omega service intervals of 8-10 years seems spot on. I have had very positive experiences with all my Omega’s (so far at least, i hope I’m not tempting fate) All the best, I hope you find one you like and enjoy

  • 3ndeavor

    Empirecity Please get your Rolex serviced.. it may still be keeping time but it is way past due for service.  Just because it’s still keeping time doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be maintained.  Your car would still run if you didn’t change the oil but I guarantee you are causing unnecessary wear to the movement.

  • 3ndeavor

    There is a bit of misinformation in this article..  
    The balance wheel itself isn’t made of silicone just the hairspring.  
    The barrel drum and lid are coated not the arbor.  Yes, there was a recall on the barrels of the 8500 as the coating was interacting negatively on some (not all) arbors leaving a brown residue which caused undue friction.  They tweaked the coating and now the coating doesn’t extend to where the arbor contacts the lid and drum.  The consumer can’t see this as it’s under the bridge so the aesthetic of a black barrel is still there.

    The 1120 automatic winds in both directions as well.  The 8500 has a more efficient mechanism and doesn’t use steel ball bearings so it is quieter.  
    The whole 28800bph to 25200bph thing is still up in the air AFAIK.  I’ve heard a few different reasons.  One being that Daniels designed the coaxial to run at 21600bph and that the impulse from the coaxial wheel wasn’t as effective at 28800bph because the balance was moving away too quickly.  Omega slowed it down to 25200bph as a compromise to the original design.  Let’s face it, the avg consumer wants a smooth sweep and to see that 28800bph number as it’s associated with a better movement.  I’ve seen my share of complaints with the jittery sweep of a Speedmaster chrono hand when it’s just the nature of the beast.

  • egznyc

    I agree that the 8500 finishing looks fantastic! It’s not clear to me that it’s a better engine, either, but seems it’s too early to conclude a victor in this battle yet. I want to believe the co-axial will prove its worth but only time will tell.

  • egznyc

    This article was great fun, just like the one on the 3135 that preceded it. Hard to beat an interview with the watch servicer who has worked on these little engines and obviously has his opinions of the relative worth of each – even though it’s clearly from a servicing perspective.

  • Christopher Johnston

    Decent article ,but this chap is a watch repairer NOT watchmaker .

    • I_G

      A watchmaker is an artisan who makes and repairs watches. Since a majority of watches are now factory made, most modern watchmakers only repair watches.

      • Christopher Johnston

        Hmm thanks for agreeing with me but I am quite sure this chap is not qualified to comment on the genius George Daniels

  • MrTissot

    The 8500 is a much more advanced movement that came much later so it is going to take another decade or so and a newer generation of watchmakers to experience understanding it fully and therefore perfectly servicing it as it should be. It really is a movement design ahead of its time but that also does not necessarily mean it will definitely prove to be more accurate or robust. Only time will tell. (Pardon the pun)
    All in all if all goes well this particular titanium liquidmetal model pictured could become sought after and very collectible in the near future!


    Great article, thanks.

  • Drop files here or
    Accepted file types: jpg, png.