View Single Post
Old 3 November 2014, 12:57 AM   #59
RollieVerde
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Very Far Away
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rashid.bk View Post
Schiphol is a dangerous place. My favourite airport hands down. My LVc is utterly amazing, definitely a keeper, however there is just an undeniable magic of a standard black Submariner. Sometimes I feel that I don't really have a "Sub" but instead an "LVc" aka the green Submariner. Weird I know, but black is the original and timeless. That's what makes deciding between this Seamaster and an 114060 so difficult.
The Rolex has what I call Rolex magic sauce, once you taste it, you just have to have it. The Omega doesn't, it just has better features I think, but no magic sauce.




I have searched as much as I could and could only find others on the internet confused, lacking a source to outright presumptions. Can you please ever so kindly post a link to your source(preferably from Tudor, not another guy on the internet) that states that Tudor uses grade 5. I have found most information stating they don't.
I will see about calling Rolex/Tudor monday and see if they can answer....doubt it. On another thread a member stated he called and was told grade 2, but who knows how reliable that is.

Omega uses grade 5 titanium, see link below. I can post more links for Omega, they aren't as secretive as Rolex. However, I do find the lack of information from Tudor to be telling. They are extremely adamant about specifically highlighting and marketing the "highest" quality ss available in 904L for Rolex(Tudor uses 316), yet won't do the same for their Ti.

http://www.omegawatches.com/press/press-kit-text/1713




I have heard this regarding the case thickness. I owned a PO 2500 and then went to a PO 8500 and the difference was immense. I found the PO almost as thick as my Deepsea. I sold it asap. At first it was stated that Omega made this new movement three levels and that it required this thickness, but then they made an Aqua Terra which wasn't that thick. This new Seamaster features this family of movement and isn't thick either.
I've concluded based on my rudimentary research that the true reason is a combination of the big watch craze and the obsession Omega seems to have with display back cases. The DSOTM isn't as thick as the standard Speedmaster 9300.

But to be clear I do believe the movement is thicker by one mm or two, but certainly not requiring the large hockey puck cases that Omega is very fond of lately. They seem to be getting the message and as can be seen by this new Seamaster, the cases are getting slimmer.
This is fascinating stuff. I'd love to know what was changed exactly when going from the 2500 movement all the way to the 9300, but I forgot about the display back factor. I know the 9300 movement is supposed to be far superior to the older co-axial, but I wasn't aware there was so much changed in terms of architecture. I think you could be right in terms of the big watch craze, as when you make the watch bigger in one dimension you often need to increase the size in other areas too to keep the proportions as desired. I can't help but wonder where watch size will go in the next few years. Bigger? Or will somebody boldly reverse the trend and go smaller?
RollieVerde is offline   Reply With Quote