Burgundy bronze gold Seamaster release

Posts
2,655
Likes
2,977
The strap version is in line price wise with the other bronze gold Seamaster. The bracelet version price is a little steep.
 
Posts
12,133
Likes
40,387
The bracelet version price is a little steep
As they always are for precious metal bracelets, nothing new there.

I like the colorway, but I think I still like the bronze gold 300 Heritage's brown colorway a little more.
 
Posts
1,374
Likes
727
There will always be aficionados and phonies who will be fooled by bronze or silver.
 
Posts
7,198
Likes
23,349
There will always be aficionados and phonies who will be fooled by bronze or silver.
Your statement makes no sense. If you’re an aficionado, aren’t you by definition less likely to be fooled?
 
Posts
1,873
Likes
2,851
At first I thought the price seemed reasonable relative to other pm Omegas—then I noticed that it’s not 18k gold: it’s 9k.
 
Posts
235
Likes
236
Really nice looking watch. With a horrific price tag
 
Posts
344
Likes
482
At first I thought the price seemed reasonable relative to other pm Omegas—then I noticed that it’s not 18k gold: it’s 9k.
Not that the watch price reflects the value of the metal used for the case nowadays, because then the platinum Speedy would be a bargin and Omega would not be able to charge 100k for it. Platinum is cheaper than gold. But in this Seamaster, come on, no ceramic dial, no ceramic bezel, just a plain grainy dial that is like the Flightmaster. And only 9K gold. Meh for this price.
Edited:
 
Posts
10,501
Likes
16,407
Using 9K is a brave move if it in fact is only 37.5% Au. You can't describe an item as gold in the USA and a few other backward jurisdictions if constructed from that alloy. Either they aren't worried about US sales or are going to pull a Rolex and invent a creative name for this wonder alloy. Or perhaps it is in fact 10K so can be sold in both and legally described as gold.

I just found where they do state it is 37.5% Au so not 10K, I wonder how they will market this in the US? 'Bronze Gold' is a bit dodgy since it implies it is gold!
Edited:
 
Posts
3,929
Likes
8,516
Your statement makes no sense. If you’re an aficionado, aren’t you by definition less likely to be fooled?
Wait wait WAIT- isn't it the opposite? 😉
 
Posts
3,929
Likes
8,516
Using 9K is a brave move if it in fact is 37.5% proof. You can't sell an item in the USA and a few other backward jurisdictions if constructed from that alloy. Either they aren't worried about US sales or are going to pull a Rolex and invent a creative name for this wonder alloy. Or perhaps it is in fact 10K so can be sold in both and legally described as gold.

Anyone got an official source for where it is stated it is 9K? I note on the website, it is described as bronze gold but nothing is stated about the purity.

It's not marketed as 9k gold at all- it's marketed as bronze-gold. But, it is indeed 9k. The advantage is that it tarnishes much, much, much less than bronze. This is the same alloy that they used for the bronze-gold seamaster heritage. The several-year old versions of this I've seen don't tarnish much at all. Here's Vizslafriend's watch (he's a watchuseek member). Maybe it darkened slightly, but it doesn't tarnish like true bronze because it isn't true bronze.


I think the new release is lovely on the rubber strap, but I'm not sure I'd purchase one.



Image taken from monochrome
https://monochrome-watches.com/revi...300m-bronze-gold-burgundy-bezel-review-price/
 
Posts
29,815
Likes
77,157
Using 9K is a brave move if it in fact is 37.5% proof. You can't sell an item in the USA and a few other backward jurisdictions if constructed from that alloy.
Pretty sure you can, but you just cannot call it gold.
 
Posts
7,711
Likes
14,255
Using 9K is a brave move if it in fact is 37.5% proof. You can't describe an item as gold in the USA and a few other backward jurisdictions if constructed from that alloy. Either they aren't worried about US sales or are going to pull a Rolex and invent a creative name for this wonder alloy. Or perhaps it is in fact 10K so can be sold in both and legally described as gold.

I just found where they do state it is 37.5% Au so not 10K, I wonder how they will market this in the US?
In the description of 'bronze gold' on the US website Omega says it is hallmarked as 9k. It is available in the US. The wonder alloy is 'bronze gold'.
 
Posts
10,501
Likes
16,407
Wow, they are stretching it a tad there then. I am surprised the US have allowed that since they don't recognise 9K. Using the word gold in a description for something that isn't legally gold wouldn't wash over here in the UK, but of course being 9K it is legal here.
 
Posts
3,929
Likes
8,516
Wow, they are stretching it a tad there then. I am surprised the US have allowed that since they don't recognise 9K. Using the word gold in a description for something that isn't legally gold wouldn't wash over here in the UK, but of course being 9K it is legal here.

it's a trick of the leading word, "bronze." They're not calling it gold-bronze, they're calling it bronze-gold. Semantics.... really are important, eh?
 
Posts
10,501
Likes
16,407
it's a trick of the leading word, "bronze." They're not calling it gold-bronze, they're calling it bronze-gold. Semantics.... really are important, eh?
I agree, but to my ear, gold bronze sounds less like they are claiming it is gold than 'Bronze Gold', which implies solid gold with a bronze colour. In English-English at least, the adjective usually goes first with the noun second. Not always the case in Euro languages I know.

I'll let it lie since I realise if the alloy its already on sale it's a bit academic!

As an aside, and a little irrelevant I know, but Rolex are very careful with their two tone models to never call the middle stripe and bezel 18K gold even though it is, due to the legal constraints on describing precious metal items they call it Rolesor which is madey-uppy.
Edited:
 
Posts
3,929
Likes
8,516
I agree, but to my ear, gold bronze sounds less like they are claiming it is gold than 'Bronze Gold', which implies solid gold with a bronze colour. In English-English at least, the adjective usually goes first with the noun second. Not always the case in Euro languages I know.

I'll let it lie since I realise if its already on sale it's a bit academic!

Yes- the adjective modifies the noun is the way I read it, too. But it's a trick of how ingredients lists are written being applied to labeling that seems somewhat common in the US- from greatest quantity to least. Which, from the perspective of a company is exceptional, because they can write things like this which your (our) brain read as a adjective-noun pairing, but technuckllly they're following the labeling rules. I can't think of any specific examples, but I remember being pissed off several years ago reading some food labels and wondering how they could get away with this sort of thing.
 
Posts
1,374
Likes
727
Your statement makes no sense. If you’re an aficionado, aren’t you by definition less likely to be fooled?
An aficionado is not a connaisseur. The others are always phonies.
 
Posts
2,655
Likes
2,977
It's not marketed as 9k gold at all- it's marketed as bronze-gold. But, it is indeed 9k. The advantage is that it tarnishes much, much, much less than bronze. This is the same alloy that they used for the bronze-gold seamaster heritage. The several-year old versions of this I've seen don't tarnish much at all. Here's Vizslafriend's watch (he's a watchuseek member). Maybe it darkened slightly, but it doesn't tarnish like true bronze because it isn't true bronze.


I think the new release is lovely on the rubber strap, but I'm not sure I'd purchase one.



Image taken from monochrome
https://monochrome-watches.com/revi...300m-bronze-gold-burgundy-bezel-review-price/
More importantly, Omega finally came out with a bronze gold deployant clasp so the other bronze gold Seamaster can finally get a folding clasp instead of the pin buckle.