ABTW's Vintage Omega Fail

Have a love for a bygone era? Discuss you vintage loves here!

ABTW's Vintage Omega Fail

Postby MKTheVintageBloke » August 9th 2017, 8:46am

So, I've just been reading through today's articles at watch blogs, and upon reading one, I came to this conclusion: whether to trust ABTW's contemporary watch reviews or not, that's up for debate, but without a doubt I would recommend not to trust their (rarely featured, as contemporary watches are their focus) coverage of anything vintage.

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/omega-ck2129-watch-dunkirk-film-omegas-role-ww2/

It's an article about the Omega Weems featured in Dunkirk (nota bene, the watch in the movie had obviously incorrect hands, and on top of that - relumed ones!), and they have used it as an opportunity to cover other British-issued Omega milwatches...with a rather poor result.

Lesson number 1: When writing a reference article, make sure you use correct examples of watches you write about.
First of all, while the CK 2129 Weems example shown is correct, the CK 2292 and the W.W.W. are not.

The CK 2292 shown is a fucking redial- whether a MoD-commissioned one or done by whoever first bought it from a military surplus sale, that doesn't matter, as it's still a redial, and as such it should be avoided. In a reference/technical article, using one as an example is at best a rather silly thing to do.

The W.W.W., meanwhile, has relumed hands and an overpolished case- the completely uneven edges of the lugs give that away.

They also completely fail to mention, that the 2292 was actually a reference for two slightly different watches, the 6B/159 and the HS8. The former was supplied to the RAF, and featured fixed lugs, while the HS8 was issued to the Fleet Air Arm, and had normal spring bars. Doesn't sound like much of a difference, but with milwatches (or anything vintage, for that matter!) it's important.

Then goes the part about the movements. 30 T2, more sophisticated than the 23.4 SC? Fuck, no! Just, no. The layout was pretty much identical- the difference is the size, 23.4 mm vs. 30 mm. Also, the point about the 30 T2 being anti-magnetic as opposed to the 23.4 is a load of bollocks as well. Both movements, in most of their versions, used identical Breguet hairsprings- the anti-magnetic versions either had the suffix "AM", or were assigned a different number upon the 30 T2 family becoming the 26X/28X. It may be, that the 30 T2 SC (that's because the 2292 had an indirectly driven sweep second) and 30 T2 featured in the WWW and 2292 didn't have the standard hairspring (I don't know- Omega only mentions "special adjustment" in the OVD entries for these watches, but didn't care to explain what does that mean), but the regular 30 T2 and the 23.4 family were produced at the same time, so it would be rather odd to use two different hairspring alloys, other than in versions supposed to be more anti-magnetic (like the cal. 283). If it's just a 30 T2, then no, it's not any more anti-magnetic than a 23.4 made at the same time!
The 30 T2/ 30 T2 SC would have been more accurate alright, due to having a larger balance wheel, but that's hardly anything sophisticated.

Yeah, well... That'd be all, I guess.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.
Winston Churchill

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
The Dude

Oh, cock!
James May
User avatar
MKTheVintageBloke
Master of Time
 
Posts: 652
Joined: December 7th 2016, 2:47pm

Return to Vintage Watches

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests