- Posts
- 300
- Likes
- 197
gvids
路I've got the same strap, so that's a start, but adding the Globemaster bit to it would have upped the cost quite considerably.. 馃榾
Cases sizes, thickness, and contours. Who wants a slimmer Omega?
- Posts
- 53
- Likes
- 18
Super Fuzz
路When you鈥檙e a looking for something smaller and thinner then it鈥檚 the Globemaster. With its 39mm diameter and its slim profile it鈥檚 a very versatile watch. Sporty with the bracelet, dressy with a strap. I have the OEM blue strap ordered in addition to the bracelet. The brown B&S isn鈥檛 the best fit but it鈥檚 the only picture I have which shows my GM from the side.
Very nice. The main thing keeping from the Globemaster is the fluted bezel. It is just a thing I despise aesthetically.
- Posts
- 1,802
- Likes
- 10,156
ras47
路Very nice. The main thing keeping from the Globemaster is the fluted bezel. It is just a thing I despise aesthetically.
- Posts
- 53
- Likes
- 18
Super Fuzz
路I totally get that. There are one or two Rolex models I think look good with the fluted bezel, but I generally prefer smooth. Fluted bezels look to me like they鈥檙e trying to simulate a rotatable bezel ala the Seamasters. I鈥檓 more about functionality over aesthetic touches, one reason I鈥檓 a big Speedmaster fan. Aesthetic flourishes are great, but they have to make sense for me to truly appreciate them.
With you on this one. I can understand a DJ with white gold or whatever, and I think that鈥檚 a classic look even though I wouldn鈥檛 wear one. I鈥檓 more of a tool look kind of guy. If Rolex hears the call of the people and rectifies the stupid case problem they鈥檝e got going with the current Subs then I鈥檒l finally give them my money. Otherwise I鈥檒l wait it out for the right Seamaster.
As has been mentioned already, the non-LE Railmaster might be it for me. I pretty much love everything about it except the brushed steel dial. That鈥檚 something I can probably get over though. The Explorer I is a close second but I think the 3-6-9 digits are way too big and ruin the dial. Omega always gets it right in that department, however.
- Posts
- 415
- Likes
- 489
Shailor
路
- Posts
- 300
- Likes
- 197
gvids
路
- Posts
- 41
- Likes
- 83
watchmavan
路Until Omega, Tudor, Brietling, Rolex do something about their massive chunks of metal I'll stick to this.
For the same reasons u only use NATO'S that are 1.2mm thick.
For the same reasons u only use NATO'S that are 1.2mm thick.
- Posts
- 3,384
- Likes
- 6,572
fskywalker
路Your solution is the PO 2201.50. That's what I have with the 2500D caliber and I would never consider any of the newer models for all the reasons you mentioned.
Well the newer 8800 PO is slimmer than the 2201 at 14.16mm.......
- Posts
- 3,384
- Likes
- 6,572
fskywalker
路After a lot of excessive deliberation, I went for my Explorer I...happy customer 馃榾
I had the 114270 and 214270 Explorers, both great watches with a reasonable thickness for their sizes. Currently own the 116000 OP and love its size and thickness, a winner in my book!
- Posts
- 101
- Likes
- 126
lhawli
路Well the newer 8800 PO is slimmer than the 2201 at 14.16mm.......
But it only comes in 39.5 case size right?
I tried one on a few weeks back, and although technically it is only 0.5mm smaller than my SubC - on my wrist and optically it looked small. I may want to give it another try when I鈥檓 at my AD next.
Are the 43.5mm cal 8900 also as slim as the 8800?
- Posts
- 3,384
- Likes
- 6,572
fskywalker
路But it only comes in 39.5 case size right?
Are the 43.5mm cal 8900 also as slim as the 8800?
Caliber 8800 comes only on the 39 mm PO, on 43.5mm PO (caliber 8900) the watch is thicker (over 15mm if not mistaken)
- Posts
- 138
- Likes
- 796
Morrisdog
路I have the Ti SM 300 and generally agree that it would be better if it were a little thinner. However it has not really stopped me from enjoying the watch. I also have a 39mm Rolex OP which is much thinner but I can鈥檛 say it鈥檚 more comfortable. I also have an old Speedmaster reduced with the Hesalite crystal. I think this is even thinner than the Rolex but again I can鈥檛 say it鈥檚 more comfortable than my chunky SM 300. In the end I wear the SM much more often than any of my other watches because i love the look of its dial under the slightly domed crystal. The thickness has not been a functional problem for me.
However I fully agree with the concept that all these fantastic modern watches could be made so much better if they were a little thinner. I think the main culprit for this obesity crisis is the sapphire casebacks. Do we really need them is the big question . I for one could easily do without them if it meant shaving 1-2mm.
However I fully agree with the concept that all these fantastic modern watches could be made so much better if they were a little thinner. I think the main culprit for this obesity crisis is the sapphire casebacks. Do we really need them is the big question . I for one could easily do without them if it meant shaving 1-2mm.
- Posts
- 379
- Likes
- 491
kippyk
路Sapphire casebacks are not needed. Thinner is better is my opinion.
- Posts
- 2,645
- Likes
- 2,960
texasmade
路The thickness of a lot of recent Omega watches has held me back from buying more. I look at the Omega website and love the watches. When I get to the boutique or AD to try them on, they're all massively thick. I don't expect the watches to be an ultrathin complication but I don't want them wearing 15mm high.
- Posts
- 1,813
- Likes
- 9,397
Longbow
路Ah, thickness; a perennial topic where Omega watches are concerned. I鈥檝e lost count of the number of times I鈥檝e seen a beautiful dial lost in an apparently too thick housing. First case in point:-
(Before any MKII guys start griping, I would just like to say I find this rather cool, but looks too comical to wear in public).
There鈥檚 a distinct lack of comparative images here so please allow me to fix this for you. How do you think these guys are going to compare from 1970s to 2017?
Let鈥檚 take a look.
The Connie is obviously thinner and lighter in every respect, but note how the mid-case sits lower and the crystal higher. This gives an optical illusion of the watch head being thinner IMHO.
Bracelet clasps have also put on too much stodge I feel.
The Globemaster looks the thickest out of this quartet and indeed it is, but as already stated only by a fraction of a millimeter more than the Railmaster, which I think looks and wears rather flat.
So what about Omega vs Rolex? Comparing the latest RMLE and Explorer I we see that there鈥檚 not much in it.
If anything the Rolex looks slightly wider and thinner.
Overall I would welcome some concerted effort from Omega to thin things down a bit.
(Before any MKII guys start griping, I would just like to say I find this rather cool, but looks too comical to wear in public).
There鈥檚 a distinct lack of comparative images here so please allow me to fix this for you. How do you think these guys are going to compare from 1970s to 2017?
Let鈥檚 take a look.
The Connie is obviously thinner and lighter in every respect, but note how the mid-case sits lower and the crystal higher. This gives an optical illusion of the watch head being thinner IMHO.
Bracelet clasps have also put on too much stodge I feel.
The Globemaster looks the thickest out of this quartet and indeed it is, but as already stated only by a fraction of a millimeter more than the Railmaster, which I think looks and wears rather flat.
So what about Omega vs Rolex? Comparing the latest RMLE and Explorer I we see that there鈥檚 not much in it.
If anything the Rolex looks slightly wider and thinner.
Overall I would welcome some concerted effort from Omega to thin things down a bit.
Edited:
Similar threads
- Posts
- 17
- Views
- 414
- Posts
- 10
- Views
- 668
- Posts
- 3
- Views
- 303
- Posts
- 5
- Views
- 176
- Posts
- 59
- Views
- 5K