Let's not get caught up in semantics. There is more than just a passing resemblance.
Speedy Tuesday is a great looking watch, but one shouldn't criticize Speedmaster 60th as a "pale imitation" without taking the same stance on the Tuesday. Both watches draw significant inspiration from classic designs that are beloved by the collector community.
Let's not get caught up in semantics. There is more than just a passing resemblance.
Speedy Tuesday is a great looking watch, but one shouldn't criticize Speedmaster 60th as a "pale imitation" without taking the same stance on the Tuesday. Both watches draw significant inspiration from classic designs that are beloved by the collector community.
That's not a Paul Newman... a Newman has an exotic aka Art Deco dial.
Not the Newman, just the standard 6263 reverse panda Daytona, one of the most iconic watches that Rolex has ever released.
That's the inspiration for the Speedy Tuesday. Nothing wrong with that, of course, it was a look that was missing in the couple dozen Speedmaster derivative special editions. But to ignore that the Speedy Tuesday owes this desirable Daytona a nod of thanks is silly.
Let's not get caught up in semantics. There is more than just a passing resemblance.
Speedy Tuesday is a great looking watch, but one shouldn't criticize Speedmaster 60th as a "pale imitation" without taking the same stance on the Tuesday. Both watches draw significant inspiration from classic designs that are beloved by the collector community.
Actually no. Rolex did not invent the reverse Panda. Rolex did not invent the external tach bezel either, Omega did. The defining aspects of the Daytona are the screw down pushers and half lume thin baton hands on a Chrono and the associated lack of legibility. Those are the features of every Daytona.
In the end we are both right it just depends on how you see things. Are fluted Bezels a Rolex thing? Well they are now... Broad arrow hands? omega.
The Tuesday is either another in a long line of recolored Speedmasters or a homage to the Daytona or a bit of both. .
btw @abrahamovic please don't use all caps like that in a thread title, I know you do it to make your thread stand out and get more attention, but thats precisely why its not appropriate to do.
Take both, as a matter of quotation you are @abrahamovic ain't you?
Without a doubt id keep the ST . It's all a LE should be: unique, special, lilmited and not gimicky.
Can't say the same about the 60th
So the watch that is a thoroughly accurate recreation of an actual production watch beloved by thousands and considered to be the most rare and desirable Omega ever created is "gimicky"?
Yes, because it recreates an actual production instead of being a new production of an old classic, and it's design half way to "appear" like the old at a cosmetic level. It's the difference between a palace room, and a movie set of a palace room. Both look great on camera, but one of them replicates the other.
And no, the ST is not a gimmik (imo) becaise even though as you state it is build to please a target audience it actually carries some unique design features in a specific combination that is not trying to be anything but itself. You may like it or not, but it's just the speedy Tuesday, not a watch made to look like the ST was if it was issued 60 years ago but with the aged lume etc etc.
I agree both are beautiful, I am not putting one down, Im not a critic for the New York Times...I am just stating my opinion, as you are staying yours.
