Vacheron Overseas - what DON'T you like about it?

[CactusTreeFiddy]

I've been a huge fan of the VC overseas range for a long time now, and among the upper tier of luxury sports models it holds a really unique position that even the original RO can't attain, given its functionality, practicality etc

But, for those who've paid attention to the range, what do you really NOT like about it? Just hoping for some honest but constructive input if possible

I'll start with my own: the VC range goes through too many iterations ever since the 222, changing its case shape/dial furniture too much across generations that no single model will ever be a timeless piece... The benefit of the royal oak's unchanging design is that any piece you buy will always remain iconic, whereas Gen 1 VC owners are being outdated by more modernized designs

[texasmade]

When I tried on the latest generation several years ago, it just sat weird on my wrist.

[Dino944]

No watch can be everything to everyone. As you stated, there was no real evolution or history with the Overseas. VC gave us the 222 which was beautiful, the hideous 333, the odd and unattractive Phidias, then the first generation Overseas.

The 1st Gen was a decent attempt at a sports watch. It looked good. But it had a tendency for the bracelet links to lockup together. Personally, I thought the design and finish of the RO and Nautilus were nicer. While maybe a tad outdated, I like it more than the 2nd generation.

The 2nd Gen had ugly dials and hands. The size was needlessly increased just to jump on the big watch bandwagon The angle at which the case and bracelet met made it an awkward fit for some people, plus the bracelet consisting of Maltese Crosses is a bit too blingy/brand advertising. I also though the fit and finish still were not quite as nice as on the RO and Nautilus.

The 3rd Gen is a big improvement. Better looking dials and hands. The bezel and case revisions make it the overall look more appealing to me. I'm still not in love with the bracelet. I haven't compared it to a RO or Nautilus, but I think they have made a lot of progress with this latest generation of Overeas models. That being said...I still prefer the look of the 222.

Sorry, but I'm not really seeing the unique position you said it holds that neither a RO [or Natilus] can't attain. I say all that as someone who is a fan of VC and owns 2 of their watches.

[Gebbeth]

That it went from a watch you could easily get, to one where ADs won't give you the time of day, within about 1 year.

[ChaseATX]

Sometimes I wish the seconds hacked for reference time setting. Not a major issue and understand why not.

[JPMickB83]

I have a silver dial 4500v.

Here's what I'm not in love with about it:
- The elongated case shape is a bit weird
- The plinth that sits under the maltese motif bezel feels totally unnecessary and hangs over the edges
- The overabundance of hashmarks around the dial and rehaut
- And I can't decide if the date window frame would be better if it was black oxidized like the hands and indices (silver dial issue only)

Some folks say the date wheel/window/font is a problem for them, but it's never bothered me.

But don't get me wrong, it's a totally amazing watch that's ridiculously versatile for being haute horology. I think it's totally a step in the right direction, and it's possible that the 4th generation could be the real RO/Nautilus killer if they refine some of the quirky design elements and give it some timeless soul.

[raclaims]

I have a bunch of them...until I got the 222 I couldn't come up with something I didn't like...the 222 bracelet is so insanely good it makes the overseas pale in comparison.

So, I guess that's all I can come up with. I love the strap change system...the dials are insane...they are stout...just great pieces. Now if they changed it to a 222 type bracelet forget about it!

[vitalsigns]

I think it's overdesigned with the Maltese cross motif, just as its predecessors were overdesigned. None of them has aged well, IMO, although I think the Gen 2 is the best.

The bezel in particular just doesn't work for me (Maltese cross cut-outs). And the date at 4:30 is an eyesore.

VC has failed to achieve the simple elegance of the Nautilus or the industrial simplicity of the Royal Oak (although I'm not a major fan of the RO either).

[gretch6364]

Not sure what you mean by " holds a really unique position that even the original RO can't attain." What position is this exactly?

I think it is great, but needs to be thinner, 1mm smaller and some improvements of the ergonomics. Also, apparently the quick sizing sizing adjustment function needs some work.

The chrono in particular is too thick. The watch seems to compete in the middle between a RO and ROO. Which one does it one to be? Can't be both.

[GB-man]

I just don’t find the design as attractive as the RO or nautilus and the use of the cross in so many facets while clever results in a lackluster design, to me.

[uniqueMR]

Wish it was an independent brand (Richemont).

[mickyd329]

It's hard to pinpoint, but its just underwhelming after time. When I first got the 7900 blue dial, I thought it was the coolest thing with the strap system. That blue dial was very different from everything else in its class. I wore it often and changed out straps often.

After about a year or so, I found myself not wearing it much. The honeymoon was over, unlike my RO's where the honeymoon doesn't seem to fade with time.

The two things in particular I didn't like were the bracelet and the bezel. Too much of the Maltese cross and bracelet finishing was just not special. I wore it the most with a rubber strap.

At the end of the day, it's still a nice piece and an alternative to the RO and Nautilus. It's more under the radar for a high end sports watch and that's not such a bad thing in the world we live in today. I ultimatelty ended up moving on from the piece and haven't really regretted it.

[Calborn]

Originally Posted by texasmade

When I tried on the latest generation several years ago, it just sat weird on my wrist.

+1

was considering it against the Daytona, but it just wore too big for my 7" wrist


and the connections of the quick strap change system felt too wiggly/loose for something from the Big 3

[aapriadi]

Originally Posted by Calborn

and the connections of the quick strap change system felt too wiggly/loose for something from the Big 3

Agreed. I also wish VC sticks on a timeless design for the Overseas, like the 222.
Also slightly annoyed by the thickness of my 7900v; I feel VC could and should have made it slimmer

[youthagainsttt]

Originally Posted by aapriadi

Agreed. I also wish VC sticks on a timeless design for the Overseas, like the 222.
Also slightly annoyed by the thickness of my 7900v; I feel VC could and should have made it slimmer

I've heard this anecdotally and tried on this iteration and the previous versions numerous times

The strap system is overrated, Frederiue constant and Cartier have similar systems which are just as good

But I second the view on it being underwhelming - my favourite overseas was the dual time but pre-2020

And the overseas world time - the price is crazy considering its a steel world time, in fact the movement is very similar to a normal 3 hander, its mainly the dial which hs some extra moving parts.

[TotoroInFlight]

Two things:

1. The latest gen Overseas (time only, chrono, dual time) wore a little bit larger/thicker than I expected them to wear. Not a dealbreaker but, compared to the world of very svelte integrated watches (Nautilus, 15202, Parmigiani, etc), quite a bit different.

2. On the Overseas dual time (one that I was considering), I disliked how the second time zone hand wouldn't fit underneath the local hour time. Love how Patek has historically handled this, as the complexity of multiple hands is only there when actively traveling. On the VC, you can always see that hand.

[ap1]

While beautiful and obviously a nice piece, it needs to be a bit smaller and less thick. It’s just not as elegant on the wrist as the 5711 and RO. It’s more of a brute. The plus side of that feeling is I felt more confident wearing it than those other two. Myself, I’m a streamliner man at the moment. Also expecting a Parmigiani and it’s proportions seem more inline with the more elegant options in the peer group.

[Gebbeth]

Okay. No hacking. Cmon. It's literally called the Overseas, and you can sync to a standard reference time.

The bezel with the Maltese cross motif, the inner crevices, those nooks and crannies are hard to get clean from dust.

[ChetBaker]

I owned a black dial 4500v but quickly shifted it because it wore simply too big, particularly on the bracelet. Frankly, i have seen very few wristshots of Overseas owners that look like it’s a good fit. Much prefer the case shape of the Fiftysix to take another VC watch.

[Old Expat Beast]

Where does the name Overseas come from? Any particular meaning or relevance?

[Mutsu]

Just got one this week and loving it so far.

[Ichiran]

The watch wears large as the rigid end-link to end-link is too big and the watch is not as slim as the Nautilus and RO. To be fair the 41mm RO wears too big for me as well but there are 37, 38 and 39mm models. Comparatively the 37mm VCO have diamonds on bezel. The 41mm and larger VCO are great for people with bigger wrist.

[youthagainsttt]

Originally Posted by ap1

While beautiful and obviously a nice piece, it needs to be a bit smaller and less thick. It’s just not as elegant on the wrist as the 5711 and RO. It’s more of a brute. The plus side of that feeling is I felt more confident wearing it than those other two. Myself, I’m a streamliner man at the moment. Also expecting a Parmigiani and it’s proportions seem more inline with the more elegant options in the peer group.

Not only that but if it was a flyback chrono, you can kind of understand if it was thicker than other watches but it’s a simple 3-hander, surely 1 of the holy trinity brands can make 1 a lot thinner. You look at the movements by Piaget & Bulgari these days & it seems VC are 50 years behind

[HMHM]

Non-hacking seconds, massive lug to lug measurement, and it’s the only integrated bracelet? watch that looks better without the bracelet. (Looks way way better on its rubber strap). In the realm of integrated bracelet sport watch, it’s 4th behind the Royal Oak, Nautilus and Odysseus. The 222 is the watch that VC should have focused on to rival AP and PP.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dino944

No watch can be everything to everyone. As you stated, there was no real evolution or history with the Overseas. VC gave us the 222 which was beautiful, the hideous 333, the odd and unattractive Phidias, then the first generation Overseas.

The 1st Gen was a decent attempt at a sports watch. It looked good. But it had a tendency for the bracelet links to lockup together. Personally, I thought the design and finish of the RO and Nautilus were nicer. While maybe a tad outdated, I like it more than the 2nd generation.

The 2nd Gen had ugly dials and hands. The size was needlessly increased just to jump on the big watch bandwagon The angle at which the case and bracelet met made it an awkward fit for some people, plus the bracelet consisting of Maltese Crosses is a bit too blingy/brand advertising. I also though the fit and finish still were not quite as nice as on the RO and Nautilus.

The 3rd Gen is a big improvement. Better looking dials and hands. The bezel and case revisions make it the overall look more appealing to me. I'm still not in love with the bracelet. I haven't compared it to a RO or Nautilus, but I think they have made a lot of progress with this latest generation of Overeas models. That being said...I still prefer the look of the 222.

Sorry, but I'm not really seeing the unique position you said it holds that neither a RO [or Natilus] can't attain. I say all that as someone who is a fan of VC and owns 2 of their watches.

Bingo on the bracelet. Downright tacky, in my opinion, to fashion the links in the shape of the brand's logo.

[dchang81]

Wow didn't realize there was a 333. If someone showed me that I'd tell them it's a fake for sure.

[Moondoggy]

Nothing

[Andad]

Most things.

[JF100]

As many have mentioned the overseas can wear a little big particularly with the biggest models at 42.5mm. E.g. TSO is quite chunky when i tried it on.

That said - the ultra thin Perpetual Calendar (which is 1mm smaller at 41.5mm) fits AMAZING (sleek, classy, elegant, endless compliments) whereas the standard 4500's fit chunky at 41mm.

This leads me to think that within the 41 - 42.5 mm range on the mens overseas its the THICKNESS that actually creates the feeling of too-large or too-clunky.

Seriously, i urge anyone to try on the 41.5mm ultra thin Perpetuals vs. the 41m 4500 3-hander and tell me how you feel!!

[trackingtime]

not able to get 1 at the boutique
lol