Competition for the Co-Axial Escapement???

[bryanhiler]

When it comes to a selection of chronometer escapements for a wristwatch, there were no good options that I know of until Omega started to mass-produce George Daniels' co-axial escapement. I'm not sure how many independent makers use the co-axial other than Roger Smith (does he use the co-axial in all his watches?), but it has to be the best escapement that I am aware is available. It was the first escapement to fulfill all five major requirements for the "perfect" escapement, so I don't know why there would be anything else used, especially in an independently-made watch. Even in a pocketwatch, detent escapements aren't all that numerous because of their negative issues that make them unfit for a watch that will be subject to harsh use.

I was unaware that any watch company was using a detent escapement in a wristwatch until I started reading about the JLC Reverso Grande Complication a Triptyque with the Elipse Isometer Escapement for use in a tourbillon. Of course, the best escapement for a tourbillon is a chronometer escapement. I don't know if Omega uses the co-axial in a tourbillon, but of course George Daniels made co-axial escapements used in tourbillons for both wristwatch and pocketwatch varieties and Roger Smith has also used it in a tourbillon.

Hearing that the JLC Elipse Isometer detent passed the Moulton Pendule Shock Resistence Test was quite an impressive achievement. I guess this is achieved by a Silicium blocking-lever arm? Can anyone explain how they were able to do this, how it works?

I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with this new detent escapement for a wristwatch and how it compares with Daniels' co-axial. Does it equal the co-axial in all of the 5 areas an escapement should be able to do? One of those is the need for being self-starting (I think they said you had to shake the JLC Reverso a little to get it started, does that qualify as "self-starting"?). I know that George Daniels made many, many prototypes in several Manufacture's own movements, as well as his own watches, and he had a couple decades of testing to establish a long track record for his escapement. Do you think JLC was rushing it a bit so that they could get the escapement ready for their 3-face Reverso anniversary edition watch? Was that wise?

Is there a reason why an independent maker would use any other kind of escapement than the co-axial in their watch? I don't know what the copyright/patent laws are that might regulate that, but from all I've read George Daniels write concerning it, I got the impression that while he wished to patent it to protect his interests, he wanted to see it replace the lever escapement and I got the feeling that he would be happy to see independent watchmakers using his design.

I would love to hear any comments from anyone who knows about the JLC Elipse Isometer detent escapement and how it might compare with the co-axial with all things being considered. What are your opinions of the two?

Will the co-axial escapement ever become available for other manufactures to use beyond Omega? I'm impressed that Omega has used it in affordable watches that just about anybody can buy, but I don't have much interest in Omega watches style-wise. Can independent watchmakers use it, or are they infringing on the patent if they do that?

[felipe]

The new AP escapement is supposed to be pretty good too. Time will tell but it's nice to have an alternative to the lever.

[Curtis]

Hi Bryan,

I have to admit that I haven't given the new JLC escapement any study, so I can't comment on it one way or the other. The AP escapement is interesting, and the claims from APRP are impressive, but only time will tell if it is a viable alternative to the lever.

The coaxial, as far as I know, is open for any independent or brand to use. I think the cost of manufacturing the coaxial is what keeps others from using it and Omega certainly isn't going to make it available to the industry, so the easily sourced and proven Swiss Lever is the only option that makes sense for most.

Cheers,

Curtis

[bryanhiler]

Here is a very nice article on the JLC Reverso w/ Detent. There are clear technical drawings of the operation of the escapement.

I have yet to see anything showing the operation of AP's new escapement though what I have read seems very interesting.

I still wonder if they have really solved all of the problems that can effect a detent escapement, especially in a mass-produced wristwatch? I would love to own that Reverso, but if it is constantly skipping and stopping after getting knocked a little bit at the wrong time, I'm not sure I would be happy spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (or whatever the price will be). (I would volunteer to help JLC out by wearing one for a couple of years if they need some "real world" test participants . . . !)

Here's the link to the website:
http://www.revolution-press.com/news/?p=112

~Bryan

[jadewatchmaker]

JLC is not the only one working on an improvement of the detent. Urban Jurgensen and Christian Klings have a safe version of the escapement as well. You ask why everyone doesn't just go with the Co-Axial. One answer, variety - novelty. The fact is that most collectors are not after the greatest accuracy possible. They would not be buying tourbillions in great number if they were. The majority of tourbillions are are not as accurate as a good lever. But they are very interesting and have become a common display of the watchmaker's art. They simply have fallen for the action of watching "the whirlwind".
I met George Danials at the Sotheby's event. I mentioned the idea of using his double wheel escapement design and his response was "Why not?". So he was obviously open to my using it. Afraid the companies you mention would take legal measures to keep others from using their designs, however. Jadewatchmaker