Rolex vs Tudor vs Omega movement

[Michael1968]

Hi all,
I would like to ask who make better movements. Which one of those movements are best looking and which one is better working? Do anyone knows which one needs less services? What’s the best value for money from those 3 movements?
3135 from my Rolex DJ36 mm


MT5400 from Tudor BB58 925


Caliber 8800 from Omega Seamaster Diver 300M

[Calatrava r]

The co-axial escapement should be the best of the three and need less service.

[yuk0nxl1]

I have heard stories of the 313X going 20+ years between serving, though accuracy was less than stellar for some of those years.

Feels like the jury is still put on the Omega but the DLC barrels in the Omega should help from wearing out as quick, simular to the red anodized wheels in the Rolex. The slower beat rate and co-axial escapment should also help.

As far as the Tudor/Kenissi movement.. This is the newest of the bunch and the jury is still out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kreyzhorse]

Best value? Tudor or Omega. As far as best, that is subjective, but likely the Omega.

[DJ2020]

To bad the contrast on picture 2 and 3 is not the same as the first photo. But to answer the OP's question, I have no doubt it would be the Omega 8800.

[KatGirl]

Another vote for the Omega, who developed the coaxial escapemet based movement, in 1999. They have improved and perfected it over the years. Given the issues with the latest Rolex movement, I’m going to vote Omega. Since Tudor is part of Rolex, it’s hard to imagine they are better, than the other two choices.

Kat

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by Michael1968

Which one of those movements are best looking and which one is better working?

They are all fairly pedestrian with regard to aesthetics (read: hideous). But of the 3 you have pictured, and in general, Rolex produces the better looking movement to me despite incorporating less machined finishes than the Omega.

The better working is highly dependent on which specific movement we’re talking about. All 3 brands have movements that are solid work horses proven for decades and likewise all 3 have turds fresh from the factory.

Originally Posted by Michael1968

Do anyone knows which one needs less services?

Omega has a recommended service interval of 5-8 years. Rolex is 10 years. Both are dependent on a variety of factors, most significant of which is duration of wear. Tudor interval is 5 years.

Originally Posted by Michael1968

What’s the best value for money from those 3 movements?

The Tudor is hands down the best bang for your buck of the 3 achieving METAS certification on their newer movements for almost half the price of the 2nd most expensive of the 3.

[OTX]

From my experience, Rolex movements are the most robust. They can take a beating and keep on ticking.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Michael1968

Hi all,
I would like to ask who make better movements.

All three make 'better' movements.

Which one of those movements are best looking

The Tudor Ceramic has a really cool black movement, I find it great **because** it is different. None of three have handcrafting as you find with true artisan timepieces.

and which one is better working?

The movement that passes METAS.

Do anyone knows which one needs less services?

About equal imho. Sure, yes the George Daniels invented coax movement Omega uses does have advantages.

What’s the best value for money from those 3 movements?

Tudor METAS-certified imho. A silicon balance spring... it has it.

[Rollieo]

All the movements are quite ugly. They really aren’t designed to be beautiful, just functional.

Reliability is too hard to speak too, it’s all second hand but from general experience all seem very reliable. I do agree with yuk0nxl1‘a assessment. Too early to tell for Tudor.

It’s a bit unfair comparison though, reliability needs to be compared based on thickness and complications. That Rolex and Omega movement are time and date. The Tudor is time only. The Omega is a thicker movement (it’s easier to make a more reliable movement when you have more space), the Rolex and Tudor are thinner.

[Njkdog]

A lot of it comes down to chance almost, you might not even get a fall piece, but just maybe something not designed as perfectly, not as assembled as perfectly.
But on the average, I have heard that omega start out more accurately, but Rolex maintain their accuracy for longer. I’m talking over six months a year a few years. I’m pretty sure Bruce Williams may have said something similar, but I may be a mistaken.

I think it’s probably not an argument that omega‘s movements look the best, because they often display their movements. I do like the way, Rolex movements look, but they are not meant to be seen.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Michael1968

What’s the best value for money from those 3 movements?

Not on your list but best value I would say is Tudor/ETA. Both mine (2824) are around a decade old, showing -/+ zero secs/day, with 300+ amplitude and minimal to no beat error. Never serviced but when the time comes, I can take them to my local guy here and get it done promptly and affordably.

[RotorSelfWinding]

The Watchmakers I have met prefer to work on Rolex over the other two, but all three are good enough “Movement” shouldn’t be your reason or not for buying a watch.

[thegrandseirolexguy]

I’d say a Good old ETA is probably the best value for money. Along with the Rolex 31xx series.

Not that Tudor and omega aren’t good value.

The former is still new so reliability over a decade or so hasn’t been proven out.

Omega co-axial is good value too. Reliability is proven.

Though Servicing, especially lubrication of the escapement is no easy feat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RTG]

Each is great. IMO Tudor is the best value, Rolex is the best, co-axial if you like your watches thic.

[Krash]

I have Omega and Rolex watches. I never worry about the movements. They’re both top notch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stark1]

Completely my personal take here, but my AT with the 8500 movement was the only one that "broke" with the hour hand not advancing across 10PM after about 8-9 years of continued use. I sent the watch in for regular service and the fix was no problem. From researching, seems this is a known issue on 8500 movements where I'd be surprised if not already addressed on the newer 8800 movements.

Speedmaster 1863 movement: no issues and runs perfectly after 10 years.

I can't speak to my Rolex 32xx movements as I've not owned for more than 2 years. Time will tell.

In terms of beauty, I think it's somewhat of a moot point with Rolex and most Tudors, since you're not getting exhibition casebacks. I'd give the win to Omega here since most offerings showcase their movements I find quite attractive looking (though machine decorated).

[Gearjockey]

Originally Posted by RTG

Each is great. IMO Tudor is the best value, Rolex is the best, co-axial if you like your watches thic.

Hmm… Sky-dweller is 14mm thick and Seamaster 300m is 13.6mm
I do enjoy Skydweller tho.

[DJ2020]

Originally Posted by stark1

Completely my personal take here, but my AT with the 8500 movement was the only one that "broke" with the hour hand not advancing across 10PM after about 8-9 years of continued use. I sent the watch in for regular service and the fix was no problem. From researching, seems this is a known issue on 8500 movements where I'd be surprised if not already addressed on the newer 8800 movements.

Speedmaster 1863 movement: no issues and runs perfectly after 10 years.

I can't speak to my Rolex 32xx movements as I've not owned for more than 2 years. Time will tell.

In terms of beauty, I think it's somewhat of a moot point with Rolex and most Tudors, since you're not getting exhibition casebacks. I'd give the win to Omega here since most offerings showcase their movements I find quite attractive looking (though machine decorated).

The hour hand issue has never been a problem on the 8800 movements. I think you mean 8900, the successor to the 8500.

[RTG]

Originally Posted by Gearjockey

Hmm… Sky-dweller is 14mm thick and Seamaster 300m is 13.6mm
I do enjoy Skydweller tho.

You enjoy cherry picking? I hear they are always in season. The fattest and most complex movement from Rolex vs the most basic movement from Omega? That isn't really apples to apples.

Omega is doing a better job of taming down the their phat and thic divers but they are still phat and thic when compared Rolex. The Sub 124060 is 12.5mm.

As a wearer of a Rolex Deepsea Challenge, I can in no way criticize phat and fun watches. There are several Omega models that are a tad to thick for my taste, where the complications don't justify the thickness. I find the co-axial an answer to a question never asked that results in unnecessarily thick cases.

[Guppydriver]

A collector should have both if economically feasible.

I grasp the benefits of Daniels's co-axial design.

That said, My Omega's (current and former) typically run at +5 while the two Tudor's I have owned were conservatively +2 if even that. Both are freaking awesome timepieces.

To be fair, my new (to me) 2020 Tokyo 300M is accurate AF, a personal first for an Omega I have owned.

[Dirt]

Out of the offerings you present, the Omega is certainly prettier. Then again, that's often viewed through a display caseback and is intended to be that way.
I have some experience with an early(2005) ETA based Co-axial that has been resoundingly enjoyable from every aspect of the ownership experience. I will probably die wearing the watch. Reliability and precise are two words that come to mind.
Though not conclusive, I suspect one may get longer between services on a Co-axial generally speaking.
George Daniels may have sought to answer a question that nobody much was asking a question about when he invented the Co-axial.
I can say that the Co-axial watch i have is undoubtedly more stable with regard to timekeeping across a wide range of operating conditions.

The Rolex is a very well proven workhorse and the 31xx movements i have had have been awsome.
They have all been reliable and displayed stellar accuracy
Given that I don't get much more than 5 - 5.5 years out of a daily wearer automatic of any flavour between services. That's the practical service interval I expect before any watch may tell me it needs some TLC.

I can't speak to the Tudor.
I expect it's like a lot of movements now in that it's probably got its advantages and disadvantages, but generally good.

They all need servicing at some point.
How that happens varies quite a lot.

Don't try to over analyse it and simply go with what you like and deal with what ever comes your way.
They're all good while they're working properly and there are a great many variables

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by RTG

You enjoy cherry picking? I hear they are always in season. The fattest and most complex movement from Rolex vs the most basic movement from Omega? That isn't really apples to apples.

Omega is doing a better job of taming down the their phat and thic divers but they are still phat and thic when compared Rolex. The Sub 124060 is 12.5mm.

As a wearer of a Rolex Deepsea Challenge, I can in no way criticize phat and fun watches. There are several Omega models that are a tad to thick for my taste, where the complications don't justify the thickness. I find the co-axial an answer to a question never asked that results in unnecessarily thick cases.

We need to be mindful of the fact that the early ETA based Co-axial movements were quite slim.
I don't know what happened but when Omega branched right out from them and went with entirely different designs for their movements.
They got thicker than anybody imagined they would or could be

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

The Tudor is hands down the best bang for your buck of the 3 achieving METAS certification on their newer movements for almost half the price of the 2nd most expensive of the 3.

That's another way of looking into it
But if one values the idea that your movement gets serviced in the traditional manner along with the rest of the watch.
Then the Tudor may not be for everybody because the movements are swapped out/exchanged for another refurbished unit

[geoach]

that's why if I had a Tudor it would be older ref w/eta movement..........Dirt

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by geoach

that's why if I had a Tudor it would be older ref w/eta movement..........Dirt

Perhaps the ETA era of Tudor movements provides more options for independent servicing as well?
I don't recall this aspect being fully explored on the forum given the Tudor in-house ways of doing things

[htc8p]

i found that omega's rotor is way more sensitive and smooth than rolex rotor.

omega was very accurate even when losing power reserve

[2loaded]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

The co-axial escapement should be the best of the three and need less service.

+1. This

[WatchGuy1966]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Not on your list but best value I would say is Tudor/ETA. Both mine (2824) are around a decade old, showing -/+ zero secs/day, with 300+ amplitude and minimal to no beat error. Never serviced but when the time comes, I can take them to my local guy here and get it done promptly and affordably.

this is correctly answered. "the best value for the money". The correct answer was not listed as an option

[jimcameron]

Omega co-axel
Rolex
Tudor