OMG -- Omega 300 Master Co-Axel

[themaninblack]

Originally Posted by Cuts33

You forgot to mention its actually about a grand cheaper than the SubC no date and they are in fact NOT the same price.

But maybe you were just trying not to rub it in.

At the end of the day you either like it or you don't. It's a personal preference and matter of taste but to argue Omega did not pack a lot of punch into this offering just seems silly.

Quite right, some licence taken by me as I was comparing a recent HK price given to me on the Sub with the price of a brand new model Omega here in Australia and the Sub still the equivalent of AUD$400 more. I wanted to love the Omega watch as it looked stunning in the lead up media but it didn't quite do it for me in the flesh. I'm not an Omega man and I'm sure others will see it differently as you suggest.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by themaninblack

Looked at two of these watches in the flesh today. Not so sure that they totally impress. SS black dial and the Titanium blue dial. The case is thick and they sit high off the wrist and the sapphire crystal back reveals a movement that is not really beautiful to look at. The dials look better in photos than in real life where I felt they were somewhat flat. Omega uses an inferior grade of steel to Rolex so given that SS model is the same price as the no date Sub but without the real pedigree to justify it and it is double the price of the Tudor Black Bay (which uses a similar grade steel to the Omega), I'm not so sure that this is a winner for value. Still it is a lovely watch but I was just left a little cold and not hankering to own one.

Here's my experience with this watch:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=364210

I also saw these in person and pretty much completely disagree with everything you said. I don't think the case is thick, it was comparable to my Sub which I had on and certainly thinner than the PO 8500. I didn't feel it stuck out above my wrist, it sat the same as my Sub which I wore that day, unless your measure of sit high is comparable to wearing a Nautilus, then yeah it probably sits high. This watch is 41mm however so it does have a larger presence. Is this an issue, well there's at least 2-3 threads a week asking when Rolex for example will make a 42mm Sub so I wonder if the size is really the issue. The dial looks wonderful, it is flat in colour which is exactly what everybody wanted it to be, nobody wants this to be a glossy dial. Go find me one person that wants their SDc dial to be glossy...

The argument regarding steel is absurd. Rolex uses 904L which I do love, but lets be real here and identify the advantages in the real world, corrosion and whiter colour. I doubt highly that 90% of the population that buy a Rolex, AP, PP, Omega etc are going to use their watch day in day out in a maritime environment where the corrosion resistance will become a factor and as far as colour and shine goes...that is a detail obsessed over by the very tiny WIS population, as the general population can't even identify the difference in shade of steel between the 116610 and 116619 and the same between a platinum watch like a PP 5711 and 5711P which is Platinum. Also lets not forget that one small detail, 904L is softer which leads more people to complain about their watches scratching so easily. This all really academic, steel isn't the measure of the watch, unless you're a WIS and even then....the PP 5711 or AP 15300/400 have no issue selling and reselling, all which use that inferior 316 ss.

The argument of 904L vs 316 is only relevant if you're someone like a Comex employee who uses his watch as a tool in his trade, for the rest of the world it is a marketing strategy, which is clearly a successful one it seems.

Whether this watch is better and or worth more than an 114060 no date Sub is up to the informed individual to decide and for a Rolex fan to state that the movement on the Omega isn't attractive is laughable to say the least. For me as a watch, it is a better watch with a better movement and the Tudor BB is not even in this watch's league. But the Rolex Sub has one thing clearly superior, brand power and for the watch flipper there's resale value.
The name Rolex has more weight to the average person walking down the street using his phone as a watch but that doesn't translate into better unless we're referring to marketing. This is my opinion which however comparing the stats of each watch has some merit and common sense.

Now the fact that you have the opinion that black and white Rolex is the best watch house on the planet means that nothing can convince you otherwise so no amount of logic will sway you which begs to question why even spend time in the
"inferior" watch sub forums....is it just to debate....


Will I buy this watch over an 114060, hell yes...but I decide by putting each watch on a scale and my assessment says the Omega is a better watch based on my research and needs.

[MP5]

OK, you say the dial is just what the vintage enthusiast would pine for, What do you say about the blinged case and center links then a matte dial with printed numerals? Dont you think that places it in a no mans land of neither luxury or tool?

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by MP5

OK, you say the dial is just what the vintage enthusiast would pine for, What do you say about the blinged case and center links then a matte dial with printed numerals? Dont you think that places it in a no mans land of neither luxury or tool?

I don't know about all that, I didn't say vintage enthusiast. I just referenced the dial as it was named and from the reviews and materials I've read more people like the matte dial than don't. The ones that don't didn't state the reason being that they would have preferred a glossy dial. We could split hairs down all the features if we want....
I am not using my Omega, PP, Rolex, AP etc as a tool. Unless you mean like I'm a pilot and use my GMT at work kind of tool, but I won't be outside hammering nails or diving in Vietnam with a Nautilus.

I for one like the polished "blinged" out case and polished centre links, just as much as I like them on any other watch. I do understand that many don't like these shiny features but if the reasoning is this term "tool"....I want to know who's the lumberjack, construction worker, carpenter, dive master etc that was going to buy this watch but said, awww man polished case and center links on this too, I really wanted this but now I don't, this isn't the "tool" watch I wanted.

[MP5]

Thats not the point my friend. Since the whole watch is a throwback to the vintage, and the main impetus of the whole watch and its appeal, you cant hide behind the "it isnt a tool anyway" without acknowledging the whole point is the vintage watch right down to the fake patina, curiously they just decided to polish the whole thing and put a vintage looking dial in it but instead of making a totally modern interpretation like the applied numerals on the new PO they decided to throw it into some kinda confusing limbo

[Rashid.bk]

This isn't a vintage watch, It's a reissue with modern updates, Omega's words:

More than half a century later, the Seamaster 300 is reintroduced in a completely upgraded and enhanced form, prepared to equip a new generation of adventurers on land and in the oceans.

I don't find the watch confusing, nor am I confused about, I like it. Just like the Sedna gold version, the white gold Pepsi and yellow gold Sub. I don't care about vintage heritage really, If I wanted an old looking watch I'd just source the original. That's just me, this conversation is probably better had with a person who loves vintage pieces. I like modern touches like the liquid metal bezel and updated clasp. The one from the sixties is not something I would want on this watch.

Just like every manufacturer of luxury mechanical watches, the marketing is always geared toward this fictitious adventure man when in reality the only good thing is that the watch is indeed still robust and durable. The chances that an individual who is climbing Everest will have Exp 2 on his packing list is slim, but can he have it on the list and can the watch take it, and could someone take this Seamaster diving with all it's shiny surfaces, the answer is Yes.

I like that this watch is reminiscent of the original, I don't know if I would like it so much if it were exactly as the original. Like the Ploprof redo, much better in my opinion, the original had a plastic button for the bezel release for goodness sakes.

Just like every other watch out there, you either like it or you don't and it's perfectly okay to say, I don't like the pcls because xyz....but if the argument is because it's less "toolish", I disagree, unless of course you are a covert operative and the polished surfaces could give away your position reflecting light....otherwise if your intention was to just wear this around the office and occasional beach trip, then I don't think the pcls are any less tactical in that individuals context of use.

What is a tool watch, I think the context is different for everybody really. Does it have to mean beat up in the back yard chopping wood or is it just used in the context a person needs. I never once have dived with my Deepsea but it sure did tell me time and date every time I needed it to. For me it was the perfect tool for that task among other things.

[themaninblack]

I'm in the ocean nearly every day so my watches have to go the distance in that environment. The movement on the Black Bay may not be in the same league but the watch is half the price and I can trust the case without hesitation whilst the movement is simply tried and tested. I also have two Subs, a 5513 and a 14060M and they have never let me down so yes I am a fan of Rolex.

I don't understand Sapphire crystal backs unless the movement is someting really special or interesting to look at, this one really isn't, and I don't wear watches upside-down anyway. As for the clasp, I don't like it at all and wouldn't trust it but Omega are bringing out a selection of NATO style bands for these watches, so thats good news. This watch is certainly way thicker than my Subs or my GMT ii.

As I said it's a lovely watch, I just don't think it's a great watch.

[azguy]

I thought the guy at the Omega boutique described it well, a more polished version of a Rolex Sub and suitable to wear with a dive suit or a tuxedo.

I think it looks great, can't wait to see it in person....

[warrior]

I think it's a great looking watch. I think the word " tool watch" is one of the most laughable and overused terms on watch forums. Many times, The use of the term borders on masturbatory pretentiousness and patting one self on the back. Some Watch guys truly need to get over themselves; they're all luxury watches nowadays. I like the vintage vibe with modern touches. Looks to be a great movement, to boot

[asadtiger]

it is such a great news to hear that this model is finally available can't wait to handle one in person...there are long waiting lines I have heard at all boutiques...ofcourse, the awesomeness merits that

[RollieVerde]

Originally Posted by themaninblack

The titanium version is more than double the price of the Tudor Pelagos which has a beautiful piece of titanium casework, release valve, 500m rating, date and it's a Rolex Oyster after all but yes there is an ETA inside. So on one view an extra $5000 for the 8400 movement means you have to really love Omega and the look of this watch, as the price seems hefty.

A Pelagos is not a Rolex Oyster. The days of using a Rolex case, crystal, bracelet with an ETA movement inside are long gone. They are still using an ETA movement, but it's its own watch now for better or worse. No idea where Tudors are even made these days, but it doesn't look like they are built alongside Rolex products. The company is very secretive about where the Tudors are made, and whether they undergo anything like the testing Rolex dive watches do.

As for the Omega, they've never made a watch I have wanted to buy and this is no exception. It's purely an aesthetics thing; their design ethos just doesn't work for me. Doesn't mean they're not brilliant timepieces because they would never be as popular as they are if they weren't desirable. I do admire the fact that they do have a distinctive look that identifies it as an Omega, but I just don't like it for some reason. From the standpoint of a diver, having two crystals is not a good idea and the display back is drawback because of this. People talk of marketing hype with Rolex using 904L, well, it's better metal that 316 and will resist corrosion and polish up nicer for longer periods of time.

This is in contrast to the marketing hype of the co-axial movement, which has not proved more accurate or needing less service that conventional movements. When you do have to get it serviced, you have far fewer choices opposed to say a Rolex 3135 which can be serviced by thousands of watchmakers the world over. But the way people flip watches on forums like this (and buy dive watches that never get wet), I guess long-term durability/serviceablity is moot anyway.

[DCgator]

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

I like the Titatnium/Sedna Two Tone...

Attachment 549201

Now that is badass!!

[FTX I]

Wow this thread turned into a great debate. Congrats, guys. Rashid my friend you should use your writing skills to make some money on watch magazines. I may not agree with everything you say but your posts are great. Cheers.

[warrior]

I like both Rolex and Omega watches and own both. The benefit of the coaxial movement is debatable; in theory, there's less friction on the escapement but whether or not that translates into longer service intervals remains to be seen. At least it's a start. With movements these days, a start is a step in the right direction. However, with the new 8500, the 60 hour power reserve, bi-directional jumping hour hand ( for travel) and completely anti-magnetic ( amagnetic?) movement are arguably more useful features. The 8500 movements are extremely accurate; I would say generally more so than the 3135 ( according to many internet users, me included). Of course, regarding accuracy, every watch is different.

Originally Posted by RollieVerde

A Pelagos is not a Rolex Oyster. The days of using a Rolex case, crystal, bracelet with an ETA movement inside are long gone. They are still using an ETA movement, but it's its own watch now for better or worse. No idea where Tudors are even made these days, but it doesn't look like they are built alongside Rolex products. The company is very secretive about where the Tudors are made, and whether they undergo anything like the testing Rolex dive watches do.

As for the Omega, they've never made a watch I have wanted to buy and this is no exception. It's purely an aesthetics thing; their design ethos just doesn't work for me. Doesn't mean they're not brilliant timepieces because they would never be as popular as they are if they weren't desirable. I do admire the fact that they do have a distinctive look that identifies it as an Omega, but I just don't like it for some reason. From the standpoint of a diver, having two crystals is not a good idea and the display back is drawback because of this. People talk of marketing hype with Rolex using 904L, well, it's better metal that 316 and will resist corrosion and polish up nicer for longer periods of time.

This is in contrast to the marketing hype of the co-axial movement, which has not proved more accurate or needing less service that conventional movements. When you do have to get it serviced, you have far fewer choices opposed to say a Rolex 3135 which can be serviced by thousands of watchmakers the world over. But the way people flip watches on forums like this (and buy dive watches that never get wet), I guess long-term durability/serviceablity is moot anyway.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by warrior

I think it's a great looking watch. I think the word " tool watch" is one of the most laughable and overused terms on watch forums. Many times, The use of the term borders on masturbatory pretentiousness and patting one self on the back. Some Watch guys truly need to get over themselves; they're all luxury watches nowadays. I like the vintage vibe with modern touches. Looks to be a great movement, to boot

I hear ya loud and clear and completely agree. The context of tool has turned into a catch phrase for many, these are usually the same many who never take their Exp 2 into a cave, Explorer up a mountain, Sub underwater or Skydweller traveling across multiple continents....but somehow get all upset because Rolex put pcls on the GMT2, this single characteristic no longer makes it a "tool" watch....

Originally Posted by RollieVerde

A Pelagos is not a Rolex Oyster. The days of using a Rolex case, crystal, bracelet with an ETA movement inside are long gone. They are still using an ETA movement, but it's its own watch now for better or worse. No idea where Tudors are even made these days, but it doesn't look like they are built alongside Rolex products. The company is very secretive about where the Tudors are made, and whether they undergo anything like the testing Rolex dive watches do.

As for the Omega, they've never made a watch I have wanted to buy and this is no exception. It's purely an aesthetics thing; their design ethos just doesn't work for me. Doesn't mean they're not brilliant timepieces because they would never be as popular as they are if they weren't desirable. I do admire the fact that they do have a distinctive look that identifies it as an Omega, but I just don't like it for some reason. From the standpoint of a diver, having two crystals is not a good idea and the display back is drawback because of this. People talk of marketing hype with Rolex using 904L, well, it's better metal that 316 and will resist corrosion and polish up nicer for longer periods of time.

This is in contrast to the marketing hype of the co-axial movement, which has not proved more accurate or needing less service that conventional movements. When you do have to get it serviced, you have far fewer choices opposed to say a Rolex 3135 which can be serviced by thousands of watchmakers the world over. But the way people flip watches on forums like this (and buy dive watches that never get wet), I guess long-term durability/serviceablity is moot anyway.

Not to mention that Omega uses a more superior titanium than Tudor. I'm not sure I can agree as it relates to the servicing issues, I have never heard any sort of argument as to the fact that Omega Co-Axial movements are any more difficult to work on; or that they can only be worked on by Omega. The older first gen co-axials were modded ETA movements and the new 8500s are very similar design. Do you have some statistics or data to show that the 8500s are more difficult to work on.

Originally Posted by FTX I

Wow this thread turned into a great debate. Congrats, guys. Rashid my friend you should use your writing skills to make some money on watch magazines. I may not agree with everything you say but your posts are great. Cheers.

I appreciate the compliment, thank you so much.
My only issue is not trying to sound argumentative or offensive when I'm only trying to convey my sentiments and or opinion.
And don't worry I'm still quite jealous of that awesome duo you have.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

I appreciate the compliment, thank you so much.
My only issue is not trying to sound argumentative or offensive when I'm only trying to convey my sentiments and or opinion.
And don't worry I'm still quite jealous of that awesome duo you have.

Haha. I love both and to be honest I don't know why the black duo is not more common here. I'm doing my math to try to get an LV-C this new year's eve at Schiphol but when my wife mentions her shopping plans for our trip the Sub gets more and more distant

[themaninblack]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Not to mention that Omega uses a more superior titanium than Tudor.

Tudor uses Grade 5 Titanium. And the Omega uses?

[RollieVerde]

I didn't say they're harder to work on. I said you have far fewer choices. This is based on Omega forums I've read where owners have had trouble finding watchmakers that have experience servicing them outside of Omega service centers. But it makes sense. In the big scheme of things, there aren't many co-axial movements out there compared to more conventional movements (which the vast majority of watchmakers are familiar and experienced with). BTW, I've heard the last Omega co-axial movements dictate a thicker case, due to the construction of the movement. Is this true? It doesn't seem to me that that it would necessarily be a prerequisite, but then I heard (from a friend who is very fond of older Omegas and not a fan of the latest ones) that the nature of the movement dictates more room. Any truth to that?

[SUPERDOC]

Originally Posted by DCgator

Now that is badass!!

Actually... I Think I like this one better
image.jpg

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Haha. I love both and to be honest I don't know why the black duo is not more common here. I'm doing my math to try to get an LV-C this new year's eve at Schiphol but when my wife mentions her shopping plans for our trip the Sub gets more and more distant

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.

Originally Posted by themaninblack

Tudor uses Grade 5 Titanium. And the Omega uses?

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

Originally Posted by RollieVerde

I didn't say they're harder to work on. I said you have far fewer choices. This is based on Omega forums I've read where owners have had trouble finding watchmakers that have experience servicing them outside of Omega service centers. But it makes sense. In the big scheme of things, there aren't many co-axial movements out there compared to more conventional movements (which the vast majority of watchmakers are familiar and experienced with). BTW, I've heard the last Omega co-axial movements dictate a thicker case, due to the construction of the movement. Is this true? It doesn't seem to me that that it would necessarily be a prerequisite, but then I heard (from a friend who is very fond of older Omegas and not a fan of the latest ones) that the nature of the movement dictates more room. Any truth to that?

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.

[themaninblack]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

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.

Grade 5 titanium is not a special or higher grade of titanium than Grade 2 for example. A Grade 5 is an alloy containing 6% aluminium and 4% vanadium and has different properties to a Grade 2 which is unalloyed, a pure titanium product. There are over 10 Grades of Titanium commonly available for industrial uses. I was told by a Tudor rep they use Grade 5 and as this is the most commonly used alloy for watches there is little reason to doubt it. You are the one contending that Omega uses a superior Titanium yet you have no evidence or knowledge to support that claim.

Irrespective of the various qualities of the different titanium gradings you say that you cannot find definitive information on what grade of titanium Tudor uses so how can you cannot assert and claim the that Omega use a superior quality metal? When you get the answer from Tudor let us know.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by themaninblack

Grade 5 titanium is not a special or higher grade of titanium than Grade 2 for example. A Grade 5 is an alloy containing 6% aluminium and 4% vanadium and has different properties to a Grade 2 which is unalloyed, a pure titanium product. There are over 10 Grades of Titanium commonly available for industrial uses. I was told by a Tudor rep they use Grade 5 and as this is the most commonly used alloy for watches there is little reason to doubt it. You are the one contending that Omega uses a superior Titanium yet you have no evidence or knowledge to support that claim.

Uhhh, I did provide evidence. I provided you a link to Omega's website. If you think Omega is lying on their website then I don't know what to say. As for evidence for the Tudor, I won't hold my breath. Word from a rep isn't sound, I've had them tell me the movement inside the is BB the same as a Rolex 114060. Watches that use grade 5 Ti usually have a price reflecting that. For the Pelagos to bear the Tudor name and it's features, it would seem an immense bargain at it's price point if it used grade 5. I will email Tudor and see if I can get something in writing.

Using the same logic as used to believe that 904L is a superior ss, I also believe grade 5 to be a better titanium. If not why would it be a discussion point.....because of marketing. Then same as 904L right.
Here's a scale that shows titanium properties.

http://mrtitanium.com/tigrades.html

Each has it's benefits, grade 5 being just as hard if not harder than ss(depending what ss) and able to take on a mirror shine, also retains its natural lighter colour, and is a bit heavier than pure Ti - unlike the more pure titaniums, which don't take on a chrome like shine, weigh much less than grade 5, are a dull grey, softer and the colour takes on a patina(which many like) in the long term.

It just depends what the person prefers. I like grade 5, but that's just what I like. The Pelagos wouldn't be any less of a watch if were grade 2, not in my eyes. Just as I don't consider a Rolex to be superior just because it uses 904L. It's the whole package and I think Tudor hit a home run with the Pelagos. We're just discussing details.

In the end it was about this new Seamaster which uses "inferior" steel that you do not like and I do. You stated your reasons and I tried to convey mine in it's defense. It seems we can agree to disagree at this point. The "best" or "better" watch can and usually is a subjective issue.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by themaninblack

Irrespective of the various qualities of the different titanium gradings you say that you cannot find definitive information on what grade of titanium Tudor uses so how can you cannot assert and claim the that Omega use a superior quality metal? When you get the answer from Tudor let us know.

Seems you edited your post. The answer is simple. Grade 5 just as 904L is just as much a key point in marketing as any other. There is no evidence available from Tudor stating the type of Ti it uses, with that I am left to assume what, that they use the "best" but don't say it anywhere.
The Pelagos isn't less of a watch regardless of it's metal but it is a point to mention in the scheme of materials. Does one manufacturer use a better material...this began with your claim regarding 904L, but somehow can't accept that perhaps Tudor doesn't use the best. I'm perfectly fine with Omega not using 904L, I find that any watch using 316; a Nautilus, AP ROO, VC Offshore, Planet Ocean, etc. to still be very competitive and still the dive watch a Submariner can be, particularly as the only diving most of these watches see is around a desk. If we took a poll to see how many people bought there watch specifically for the sole purpose to go diving vs those who wear it land, I think it would be a land slide.
The way people baby their watches and at the cost that these luxury items carry, they see ocean water as much as the average Aventador sees track days.

[themaninblack]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Uhhh, I did provide evidence. I provided you a link to Omega's website. If you think Omega is lying on their website then I don't know what to say.

To support this argument you have to be able to support both sides of your assertion. As you only know the grade of the Omega titanium you cannot assert it to be superior to the Tudor as you don't know what grade of titanium they use.

Nevertheless I agree with the rest of your post. Cheers!

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by themaninblack

To support this argument you have to be able to support both sides of your assertion. As you only know the grade of the Omega titanium you cannot assert it to be superior to the Tudor as you don't know what grade of titanium they use.

Nevertheless I agree with the rest of your post. Cheers!

I have to be honest and agree you do make a valid point, I am however left to assume(possibly erroneously) without any info from Tudor.
I have an idea as part of our "peace treaty".....
I'll buy you a Pelagos and you buy me Seamaster.






Have a nice day.

[Railmaster]

This is definitely the most intriguing Omega in a while. Also, good debate going on here ;)

[asadtiger]

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

Actually... I Think I like this one better
Attachment 550603

oh God, superdoc, WHY would you do THAT?!? :( you know its over 10k, its two tone and has all the modern stuff in it, so its way over my budget and yet you tempt us so!! I would sell my car, if I had one, to buy that ;) stunning picture and piece

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

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 hear you. I think the LV-C is a truly special watch and I would really want to get it, but only after owning the two classic black ones. This is something I wanted almost all my 'wis life' but the 5 digit models were not (IMHO) good enough for me to drop the cash asked for them and Omega took the lead - always had some sort of lead somehow in my mind and I owned two 2531.80, one 2254.50, 2255.80. the classic 3570.50, then two POs 2200.50 black and 2208.80 orange . I had the feeling 'I made it' and 'I'm sitting on top of the world'...But then Rolex decided to upgrade the Sub and also decided that people with small wrists were part of society that deserved to have their watches adjusted perfectly on their chicken wrists and everything changed for me. One by one all my dear Omegas were sold and I just kept my vintage special ones and finally I had both classic black Subs. Now I could own a special version and the LV-C is leading the race. I'm not a huge fan of precious metal watches not only for the price but also the weight and the concept of strapping a chunk of gold to my wrist. Every year I spend a 'used Smurf' on trips (I try to have 2-3 every year) and I've been doing that since 1995 so I could buy a gold Sub if I really wanted just by cutting 2 or 3 trips but then I would have to beg my wife for sex and this would be uncool.. Anyway, I also feel that someday it has to stop. I mean, I can't get watches till the end of my days. I admire our huge collectors here on TRF but their reality are way different from mine and I feel I have to stop. As for your doubt between the Sub and this new Seamaster I can see your exitement with this new model, but unfortunately I don't share the same feelings. I would not even have a split second of doubt in my mind and in your shoes I would have the pair ND-C and LV-C in a heartbeat. But you love this new reference and this will be a tought decision process for you in the near future and I wish you good luck on that my friend.

[RollieVerde]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

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?

[sea-dweller]

It's a beauty!