Was recently in Venice and stopped in the Omega boutique to check out the new Venice seamaster editions. I actually first saw the stainless version in a display case at the Gritti Hotel (made famous by Hemingway having spent time there). The Omega boutique itself of course had both the gold and stainless versions. I have to say, both are gorgeous. My personal preference is stainless, however, and I was 50/50 on it with the gold indexes and hands with the stainless.

I was interested in purchasing it, and spent some time with the salesperson discussing the uniqueness of it. Beyond the Venice edition aspect, the salesperson spent a lot of time on the anti-magnetic features of the watch in conjunction with the caseback. The size of the watch is perfect, in my opinion. I have tiny wrists, and don't wear anything above a 40. The Venice seamster was substantial without being large in any way. Additionally, the salesperson showed me the special edition box it comes in with the removable travel box and whatnot. It was all beautiful and tastefully done. While impressive, it wasn't quite enough for me to pull the trigger on it however. In the end, the stainless and gold combination threw me off the scent even though it would have made a great take-home from Venice.

 

That is a beautiful dress watch - classic understated design which is unusual for Omega these days seeing what their current catalogue contains now that they've wrecked the AT ***.

I'm not normally keen on "mixed metals" - but the gold indexes and hands look perfect. I have a mid-50's Omega with that combination and it looks just right. The stainless version is definitely the one to go for.

I can even cope with it having the date in the wrong place

If it becomes more widely available it will surely end up on my short list to fill the slot left by the disappointing Railmaster re-release.

(edit - *** I should give them credit for the Globemaster though)

 

Uh, you mention a travel box and then don't show pics of it?!

 

Ha! Yeah, sorry. I took a ton of pictures and then somewhere along the line lost most of them. It's basically an insert in the center of the main box that folds back up and over the watch and the separates from the main box. It's pretty cool, though I could not imagine every actually using it.

 

It is beautiful and understated no doubt - which is why I almost walked out of the place with it. The mixed metals just wasn't for me in this case, but that's just a matter of personal taste.

 

They wrecked the AT with the initial 8500 model. In fact, this nice looking Edizione Venezia looks pretty similar to one of the original AT 2500 models, back when the AT was still clean and classic:

 

Depends on what you want out of an AT. I wanted a sport watch that I can also wear with a suit, and the 8500 AT is definitely way better at that than the 2500, no question.

 

Yep, it is.

 

Exquisite. How much is the steel version?

 

That early AT is an attractive watch. The combination of Stainless case, white dial, gold indexes and (most importantly) a brown rather than black strap or bracelet, all complement each other. I'm not sure what Omega were aiming at though. It isn't really a dress watch with those minute/second hands; at the same time it isn't quite a sports watch either.

The current (pre Basel 2017) master co-axial is definitely a sports watch, although it will dress up happily on a leather strap for anything other than the most formal of occasions. (But then, strict convention is that no gentleman would wear any timepiece with black tie/white tie anyway.)

The Venezia is most definitely a dress watch. The hands and that inner minute track are key to its attraction. Omega should offer the steel version on a brown strap to get the balance right. (Perhaps they do, haven't researched it yet.)

I'm now officially lusting after it - even with that date. (Edit: and that silly fancy engraving on the back)

 

If anything, the cleaner dial and thinner case of the original AT looks better with a suit.

Are you saying the original AT isn't sporty enough??

 

Yes. The movement is nowhere near as durable, especially if you didn't get a D movement.

 

That's exactly what Omega was aiming at. It's thin, durable and works for just about everything.

 

My B version begs to differ. Of course, Omega has a couple of things they do at service to the B and C movements, but, once that's done, it's no biggie. I mean, I wear mine golfing several times per week, not to mention everything from rock climbing to river tubing. I never take it off. In fact, I wear it for active things over my Explorer II.

 

love dat woven strap.

2500 ATs are my favorite - clean and not trying too hard, but the new MCs are promising

 

That's awesome. The 8500 is just plain a more robust movement though, and it's not arguable.

 

Sure. What's arguable is how to quantify it and whether it really matters.

Anyways, I really like this Edizione Venezia. Do we know how thick it is? Maybe thinner than the Globemaster?

 

Almost definitely thinner than the Globemaster.

 

Whoops, I forgot the Globemaster was 12.5mm. I would certainly hope so!

 

Very nice photos -- I can see why you were tempted!