Forums Latest Members

Anyone else pining for a Seamaster 300 or Diver 300m in 39-40mm sizes?

  1. Tekashi_145.022 Jun 15, 2020

    Posts
    148
    Likes
    126
    For a company that makes so many different iterations of its models, I am really disappointed that OMEGA doesn't create more divers in the 38-40mm range. Although I love so many of OMEGA's models, their form factors all miss the mark a bit for me.

    I'm at a point where I'm considering a Tudor BB 58 because OMEGA is not making anything up my alley. Although the 39.5mm Planet Ocean is appealing, I do not care for the thickness of the watch, as it feels like a hockey puck on my wrist.

    I wish the Seamaster 300, ref. 233.30.41.21.01.001, was in 39mm and not so thick. I really believe this model could go head-to-head with the Submariner if it was a bit more svelte and elegant (similar to the original dimensions of the CK2913 - but a bit more thin).
    [​IMG]
    The 1957 Trilogy edition's 39mm rendition, ref. 234.10.39.20.01.001, comes really close - but it's still a bit thick (14.1mm, I believe) and I'm not a fan of the dial's faux patina, or its lugs extending beyond its end links.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    I love the Diver 300M, ref. 210.30.42.20.04.001. The design is great, and the 13.5mm thickness is pretty darn good, but I wish it was in 40mm:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    I realize I'm griping about just a few millimetres here and there, but it makes a huge difference in comfort and wearability to me. It's the difference in wearing the watch all day vs. taking it off after long period of wear. I've owned 43mm divers before, like the Christopher Ward C60, but I find I always want to take them off when I'm at my desk.

    I prefer the OMEGA brand over Rolex, but I really do prefer the form factor of Rolex's tool watches (especially their 5-digit series)... anyone else? Given the hotness of the Tudor BB 48 compared to its 41mm brethren, I have a feeling I'm not the only one out there!

    [​IMG]
     
    mtor91 likes this.
  2. rootbeer7 Jun 15, 2020

    Posts
    472
    Likes
    1,107
    I have the Seamaster 300 which I bought without bracelet. I wear it on a nato most of the time and feel it wears smaller than its size. I also read its true size is smaller than advertised. Have you tried one on?
     
  3. zrleopold Jun 15, 2020

    Posts
    426
    Likes
    1,902
    Sometimes the written measurements and how the watches feel on the wrist don't always match up. I was wary of the thickness of the SM300MC at first, but after trying it on it wears quite well in my opinion. The case shape also does a nice job of hiding the thickness in my opinion. If you have not gotten a chance, I would definitely give it a try in person! It is a lovely watch.
     
    rootbeer7 likes this.
  4. Meme-Dweller Jun 15, 2020

    Posts
    1,873
    Likes
    2,953
    They need to bring back the 36mm "mid-size" Seamaster 300. Call it a ladies' watch, it'll do.
     
  5. Donn Chambers Jun 15, 2020

    Posts
    2,227
    Likes
    3,009
    You’d be surprised how the last gen Seamaster Pro (41mm case, 47mm lug to lug) and the Seamaster 300 MC (41mm case, 48mm lug to lug) might compare to the Black Bay 58 (39 mm case, 47mm lug to lug) because they all have similar lug to lug sizes. And even though the Black Bay is thinner, it has a thick slab side and narrow bezel, so the eye focuses on the thick case. The Omegas use the “rule of thirds” and breaks the profile into 3 quasi-similar thicknesses - the case back, the case, and the bezel. The eye is drawn more to the side of case in the middle, which is thinner than the Black Bay case, giving the illusion the watch is thinner than it is.
     
    rootbeer7 likes this.
  6. allbranbuds Jun 15, 2020

    Posts
    5
    Likes
    22
    Have you considered the Seamaster 2254.50.00?
    41mm
    12mm thick
    47mm lug to lug
    Very similar dimensions compared to the BB58!
    No fauxtina, just a mountain of lume on the dial!
     
    DJG2645 and steelfish like this.