Tekashi_145.022
·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).
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.
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:
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!
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).

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.


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:


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!
