Omega's new Marketing "Master Chronometer" Grade

[jmsrolls]

In 1983, I purchased my first high end watch:



I asked the sales person at the time if it would keep good time. His answer was "If you want accuracy, buy a Casio." I thought he was kidding but my President could never be regulated to better than a minute/day.

In 2003, I finally let the President go and have owned a hundred or so different watches since then. Yes, I was a flipper. I've owned a 16570 EXPII, a GMT Master, a TT GMT Master II, a Sea Dweller, and a vintage 6050 but never a Sub. I currently have a polar 216570 EXPII which will soon be leaving my collection.

Why is the 42 EXPII leaving? It's leaving because of the arrival in March of my Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial to go with my First Omega in Space:



Since joining my collection, the 300 MC has gained .25 sec/day. That's not quartz timing but close. It dresses up or down nicely for the pool or the boardroom. The clasp is easily adjustable allowing on the fly sizing like glidelock. The 60 hour power reserve means I do not have to put it on the winder every night. The added ability to step the hour hand for time zone changes without stopping the movement is a great feature as well. The 15K gauss rating pretty much eliminates any risk of magnetization. No, it doesn't have a date feature but the date only changes once every twenty-four hours and my memory is still sharp enough so that I only have to check the date once a day. And a final plus: when I set the hands to the markers and push in the crown, the hands do not move. They stay right where I put them. I never could do that with a Rolex.

As for "Master Co-Axial" on the dial, it makes more sense than "Superlative Chronometer." It means that Omega has taken the co-axial movement to the next level horologically. What makes a Rolex chronometer superlative to any other chronometer?

Don't get me wrong, Rolex makes fine watches but there is nothing in the Rolex line that trips my trigger anymore.

At my age (71), I've bought my last car with its last set of tires. I'm enjoying my sunset years with my last wife and my last two watches.

[locutus49]

Omega has made a career out of chasing Rolex (see 007). And they don't need to; they have fantastic watches on their own.

[trackntrail]

Originally Posted by Dokbrick

What I have learned as an Omega owner is that no matter how much I like my Omega, I want a Rolex more :p

yup this sums it up for me too

[andrewd]

I love the speedy pro, but the rest of the lineup is chopped and changed so much that there is no sense of history. The new seamaster 300 would be cool if it more or less had the same look and feel as all the seamasters for the last 50 years. But in a year or two Omega will be bored of the design and try something completely different.

[DJJon]

Originally Posted by superdog

Please elaborate on the purpose of this thread.

Two great sets of watches. Confused as to the point. Please explain.

Really Seth?

What is the purpose of asking the purpose?

What purpose do 90% of any TRF threads serve?

[DJJon]

Purpose of thread is to point out a new Marketing-driven "Standard" that maybe at least a few Rolex owners will appreciate knowing about and keeping abreast of the latest buzz in our luxury watch market space.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by locutus49

Omega has made a career out of chasing Rolex (see 007).

Yes. Like the use of ceramics, for example, which Rolex started using in 2005, and Omega, um, err, well, did in the 1980's:
http://sweepinghand.co.uk/very-rare-...amic-for-sale/

[Diamonddream]

Originally Posted by improviz

Yes. Like the use of ceramics, for example, which Rolex started using in 2005, and Omega, um, err, well, did in the 1980's:
http://sweepinghand.co.uk/very-rare-...amic-for-sale/

The globemaster's design is rightfully entitled to Omega. I think Omega's move for this new certification was a slick move, but I don't think it will convince more people to buy certain Omega models or Omega in general. It's a nice novelty though.

[tonyfabro]

Originally Posted by tomcorkery

love the blue one. dont think it will pull me away from the op 39 in blue though. Will see when I try them on.

I feel this way too

[TheBluePrince]

Originally Posted by Syed117

A somewhat frustrating aspect of many members of the Rolex fanbase are the hypocritical views when any other brand (especially Omega) does something that Rolex has been guilty of for years. Or if they are trying to make tangible improvements in any aspect of their watches. Those improvements are downplayed. Yet, when Rolex attempts the same, it's the next great innovation. I respect and appreciate Rolex as much as any sane person would, but the whole "drinking the kool aid" phenomenon is too true.

People have an issue with them labeling these new co-axial movements with the word "master". Yes, it's marketing nonsense and the dial would look cleaner with less text, but those same people have no issue with the obscene amount of text that Rolex puts on their dials. "Superlative Chronometer Officially Certified". At least "master" is a brand marketing name to differentiate those movements from standard co-axial movements. The words Rolex puts on their dials are superfluous nonsense. It's great that Omega is creating a new standard that is higher than the previous one. If all their new movements will be resistant to 15,000 gauss, that's a great thing despite any amount of argument that watches don't get magnetized often.

If Omega is pushing for their movements to be held at at even higher standard of precision, only someone extremely biased would try to downplay that. How is that possibly a bad thing? Even Rolex is pushing for more accurate timekeeping with the new 3255.

Like I said earlier, the same applies to warranties and service intervals. Omega held up the co-axial escapement as a breakthrough in terms of durability. We don't really know how they will hold up in the long term, but they stood by that innovation with a four year warranty. It's been offered for years. They also said that service intervals would be longer. That's great news for consumers. Yet, the detractors went on and on about how warranty doesn't matter and service intervals don't really matter because Rolex hadn't followed suit. Now they have and it's now a big deal.

It's fantastic that these companies are willing improve watch technology and they should all be praised when doing things that benefit consumers. Not just Rolex.

Couldn't agree more, Omega has been the far more innovative and progressive company in the last 20 years.

[flw]

I think that in a lot of ways it comes down to the fact that these are two companies with similar missions and completely different approaches. Rolex has established its reputation firmly on the idea of the timeless, classic, tried-and-true provision of watches that change only incrementally; a new Datejust or a Sub looks instantly like one that was made forty years ago or more. The movements and materials improve (glacially perhaps) over time, but the look is the statement of quality.

Omega, on the other hand, has a long tradition of more bold innovation and bigger creative departures (which makes it all the more ironic that its single best known timepiece is a watch that has remained unchanged for nearly half a century, the Speedy Moonwatch). So there are many more modern looks and varieties both inside and outside the watch case with Omega - you can get some of their models in several sizes (true for Rolex in certain cases as well), or in automatic or quartz (not true of Rolex anymore, obviously). But even with that, some Omega models now have a longevity that isn't that far off of what we expect from Rolex - just consider the Seamaster Professional Diver model (yes, the Pierce Brosnan Bond watch), that has been incrementally improved since it first appeared in 1993. Even the current iteration (2012) is immediately recognizable for what it is, after 22 years. Somehow I don't think Omega will change the look of that watch much in the years to come.

Just my two cents ...

[SUPERDOC]

I think that no matter how much you down play the METAS certification, it is something that many other watch companies took seriously. Do you think Rolex did not feel any pressure? They must be aware of their eroding market share..

Now Rolex offers extended warranties and a new movement and now a NEW METHODOLOGY TO TEST THAT MOVEMENT (when will the celebratory parade be held?)
... What an amazing coincidence... Of course, no one with a belly full of Kool aid would recognize that... its just "The Rolex way"...

What is also amazing to me is that in a hobby that involves some watch houses over 200 yrs old that many here seem to be making judgements on the kind of impact this certification will have tomorrow... it could take decades to see the full impact of this change.

Trust me, Omega does not want to chase Rolex. If anything, there is a growing negative connotation that goes along with Rolex, and many 'Watch snobs' will look at the Rolex as a pure status symbol... something that Omega does not want to become.
This is why they have invested more in the product than the marketing.

It will never cease to amaze me how any Rolex fanboy can take issue with any other company's marketing expenditures.

[subtona]

I would be more impressed if omega could make more of their watches in slimmer cases.

[Syed117]

Originally Posted by subtona

I would be more impressed if omega could make more of their watches in slimmer cases.

I don't mind thick watches but I'd like to see this as well.

Screw in crowns as a standard would also be nice. Even though I know the water resistance depends on the seals inside, it just makes it feel more secure.

[MitchSteel]

That Globemaster is one ugly muthaf$&kah
Not sure if Omega is getting on this Vintage band wagon, like others, but it just looks bad and misproportioned.As far as accuracy goes, that is yet to be determined in real world results.No mechanical movement will run spot on with out constant adjustment.

There's only one Omega I'd ever own, and that's the Speedmaster Professional.....gotta give Omega props for realizing it's a classic and keeping it relatively unchanged.However, they came up with some retarded models of the Speedy, limited editions, reduced sizes, strange looking dials, etc.

It seems, the company has no confidence in their offerings, since they change their line up every year
How many seamaster models have they introduced over the years? Yet, they all look absolutely different.Maybe it's their way of doing things, but it seems they're constantly chasing their own tail to outdo Rolex.Good luck Omeeegah

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by jmsrolls

In 1983, I purchased my first high end watch.......

At my age (71), I've bought my last car with its last set of tires. I'm enjoying my sunset years with my last wife and my last two watches.

what a great post, it puts things in perspective. I wish you many great healthy years.

[Jazz ham]

Originally Posted by ndsleep612

"Master" advertising, "Master" paid product placement, "Master" too much generic product line. "Master".....

Control-1000 hrs/testing

[DJJon]

Originally Posted by Jazz ham

Control-1000 hrs/testing

Classic simplicity.

[jshepard]

Originally Posted by MitchSteel

It seems, the company has no confidence in their offerings, since they change their line up every year

How many seamaster models have they introduced over the years? Yet, they all look absolutely different.Maybe it's their way of doing things, but it seems they're constantly chasing their own tail to outdo Rolex.Good luck Omeeegah

Ironically in trying to outdo Rolex, they only created a series of, for the most part, forgettable models while Rolex on the other hand has built a collection of classics. Imagine how iconic the seamaster would've been if they kept it generally unchanged like how Rolex did with the Submariner. Even the different variations of datejusts all have the same style, they don't have datejust chronographs, datejust GMTs.
Rolex gets it right, if you want a completely different watch, create a completely different watch, rather than integrating it in your existing products. Blancpain made the same mistake with the fifty fathoms, even though it's came out before the Sub, it's not the quintessential classic diver because there have been so many changes over he years.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk