@Dan S - Interestingly to me, the seiko and IWC (bottom right and left) really stand out. If the watches didn't have labels, I would probably prefer those. I never noticed that the logo looks like a tiny signature. It is beautiful in its own signature.
Since I didn't contribute any photos to this thread, here is a group shot of some vintage "jumbos". These are all in the 36.5-38mm range.
There may be other things drawing you to those two watches, but it is interesting that you chose the two dials with no numerals or lume.
I remember once asking my wife about her preferences in watches, and she really had never thought about features like that (lumed markers, applied markers, Arabic/Roman numerals, different types of lugs and bezels etc.), but she certainly knew what she liked and was very consistent in her preferences. I showed her a bunch of watches and could quickly narrow down the features that she preferred by trial and error. There should be an app for that. 😀
I really dislike the constant Omega "re issue" thingy, seems to focus more on what they did vs what they are doing.
For me it's really a question of genre; dress watches/pilots watches/movements 50's, 60's and 70's I think IWC was a step up. Chronographs a toss up through the 80's maybe 90's. Complications I lean IWC, don't know of any Omegas. Since Omega introduced the co-axial (which I feel they extorted from Daniels) they have certainly upped their horological game, while IWC seems to have lost direction. I really dislike the constant Omega "re issue" thingy, seems to focus more on what they did vs what they are doing.
Not sure if joking...
Daniels shopped the co-axial escapement around to almost anyone who would listen, and Omega was the only company that would bite.
Reminds me of when Netflix offered to sell its company to Blockbuster 😀 Hindsight is always 20/20.
Been wearing this one for a few days now.