I think it's more than thickness. Admittedly, I'm very partial to vintage watches and I have a tiny (15cm) wrist, but if I look at the current Rolex catalog, there are at least two models that I would love to own: the 34mm OP and the 36mm Explorer. I don't see anything comparable in Omega's offerings. There are some 34mm and 36mm Constellations but the modern Constellation design is, IMHO, uggggly. Closest is the new 34mm Aqua Terra, but I much prefer the design of the larger version.
It's a bit sad because Omega is by far my favorite brand. (I own 7 vintage Omegas, but no more than 2 of any other brand.) Yet if someone gave me $10K that I had to spend on a modern Omega watch, I honestly would not be able to buy one that I'd actually wear.
I'm more a collector of vintage Omega, but I have to respectfully disagree that Omega has lost its way with its current designs. Of the three "modern" watches that I own, this is one of my favorites. It's a beautiful watch, certainly not that thick or heavy (strapped on a Tudor hockey puck lately?), not at all flashy and I think that the fauxtina is rather nicely done. I like the innovation of the sandwich dial, the traditional aluminum bezel that has been hardened (more innovation), the bracelet is excellent and the accuracy is astonishingly good. What's not to like?
. Your heritage Seamaster, beautiful as it is, is 13.9 mm thick, while the standard Diver is 13.6 mm thick. The current Rolex Submariner 124060 is 12-12.5 mm thick (Rolex don't say and sources vary) and the original Seamaster Pro's from the 90's and 00's were 11.5 mm thick.
The crystal on the heritage is domed, and sits higher than the SMPs crystal. Despite being taller on paper it wears less chunky.
Rolex uses completely flat crystals with very little above bezel rise. I can't speak to the 6 series actual thickness and I hope somebody with some calipers and a 6 series chimes in, but the 5 series (date) is 13mm tall with a flat crystal. I don't recall height between the 5 series and 6 series being a discussed issue. Whether that is because they have essentially the same height or because when you are comparing Rolexes to Rolexes height isn't worth talking about ( 😎 ).
While I absolutely agree that the dressy aquaterra should be shorter than 13 mm, it's worth pointing out that if the Heritage had a comparably flat Crystal to the Submariner it would be very, very similar to a 5 series in height.
This isn't really a criticism of rolex's flat crystals, there isn't anything wrong with them. However, don't crystals give a different visual look and absolutely recall the vintage style. Vs the original SM300 @14.2-14.5mm tall @300M water resistance I'd say the heritage is proportioned incredibly well. (the shorter 165.024 had only 200M water resistance)
2. Why is the special editions and variation in Omegas production bad? Too hard to choose?
I think it's more comparing Omega to the price bracket they are nudging into. I personally would like them to refine their designs more if they are going to charge more money. They are incredible watches with incredible movements and they deserve to be in a premium price bracket, but as you hike the pricing exponentially more and more, you have to start giving the customer more and more. I think most would agree that in Omega's case, that should be realized in the form of slimming down their movements and cases.
1. Why do we need to compare Omega to Rolex all the time? Omega is entry level, just ask Kevin.
2. Why is the special editions and variation in Omegas production bad? Too hard to choose?
How about removing GMT movements from the already bulky PO sub-line and instead making the SMP 300M your GMT platform?
The crystal on the heritage is domed, and sits higher than the SMPs crystal. Despite being taller on paper it wears less chunky.
Rolex uses completely flat crystals with very little above bezel rise. I can't speak to the 6 series actual thickness and I hope somebody with some calipers and a 6 series chimes in, but the 5 series (date) is 13mm tall with a flat crystal. I don't recall height between the 5 series and 6 series being a discussed issue. Whether that is because they have essentially the same height or because when you are comparing Rolexes to Rolexes height isn't worth talking about ( 😎 ).
(EDIT: as far as I can tell the five and six series have essentially the same height at about 12.3-12.5mm including the crystal).
Why do we need to compare Omega to Rolex all the time?
This is a fair point I hadn't considered, the dome height would make the figures I quoted slightly misleading. I am still of the opinion the overall point holds true, Omega has a thickness issue, but it is probably not quite as significant as the numbers suggest. Whichever way you hold the calipers, many Omegas today are chunkier than the equivalent Omegas of 10-20 years ago. I would still like to see that change, personally.
C curatedOmega has lost their way and I say this as a huge Omega fan, I have more Omega watches than Rolex etc. Omega's watches are too thick, too heavy too flashy and with way too many special editions and fake patina dials.
Early 2000's Omega watches were their pinnacle in my opinion, 1st gen PO, 1st gen Aquaterra, proper Seamaster Bond watches.
Omega has an amazing catalog of historical watches. They should stick to a small core of watches, Speedmaster, PO, Bond, Aquaterra but with less variations. Make them thinner and lighter. Do a proper modernized reissue of the original Seamaster 300 like they did with the 321. Charge higher prices for that core group of watches.
Bottom line is that a public company is generally managed to the expectations of the major shareholders
Especially on this point I strongly agree. It doesn't make any sense to me to have a GMT function on a watch with 600 M of water resistance. That is a seriously dedicated dive watch and the addition of a GMT function is nonsensical.
It would make more sense to work with the aquaterra, but that would compete with the world timer... even just keeping the planet ocean as the design, which is very classic Omega, but reducing the water resistance, would make a lot of sense.
