- Posts
- 719
- Likes
- 1,093
nicolamilton
·Anyway look
Not a speedmaster but I still love my omegas. I bought this one new at full MSRP and I don't regret it.
Hilo 'Nuevo lote OMEGA 40%' https://relojes-especiales.com/threads/nuevo-lote-omega-40.599447/
Is Omega Losing Its Way? Price Hikes and Brand Criticism
Hilo 'Nuevo lote OMEGA 40%' https://relojes-especiales.com/threads/nuevo-lote-omega-40.599447/
- Posts
- 3,916
- Likes
- 8,465
ErichPryde
··Seamasters ForeverIn case you want another at 40%
Hilo 'Nuevo lote OMEGA 40%' https://relojes-especiales.com/threads/nuevo-lote-omega-40.599447/
Thanks for the offer- I'll just keep this one. I don't have to worry about depreciation that way.
- Posts
- 662
- Likes
- 1,580
Jakeys
·Thanks for the offer- I'll just keep this one. I don't have to worry about depreciation that way.
- Posts
- 223
- Likes
- 278
Hal10000
·I never watch this stuff, and I don't expect to start. Is it a YouTuber thing to put your finger on your mouth?
I can hardly imagine anything more embarrassing than being called an influencer, a YouTuber, or a Podcaster. Do people still feel it's acceptable to describe that as a career path?
Only "watch dealer" would be lower.
🔥👹🔥👹🔥👹🔥
Dan is taking NO PRISONERS.
- Posts
- 1,361
- Likes
- 716
spacemission
·In case you want another at 40%
Hilo 'Nuevo lote OMEGA 40%' https://relojes-especiales.com/threads/nuevo-lote-omega-40.599447/
- Posts
- 1,743
- Likes
- 3,400
DoctorEvil
·A valid criticism of Omega?
- Posts
- 1,501
- Likes
- 3,054
josiahg52
·Too many choices is overwhelming. How companies can help make it less so is by providing succinct and clear details on their websites and catalogs so buyers can do the research and make a decision. This isn't an Omega problem, many companies make multiple products with (sometimes only slightly) varying features. I could easily name a dozen just by looking at the spreadsheets I've created comparing them in order to know what I actually want or need. Watches are pretty easy - don't want gold, want a specific color, size, don't want numbers, size, etc., etc. I just want a really nice dress watch, but the vintage ones are small. The Trésor and Prestige seem like good candidates, with a nod to the Prestige, currently.
- Posts
- 223
- Likes
- 278
Hal10000
·They need to do what Jobs did at all when he re-took over the company.
Kill 95% of the SKUS. Focus on a few things.
Speedmasters are probably my favorite watches but even I get tired of seeing a new edition of them every 30 seconds. It takes away from it in the end.
Kill 95% of the SKUS. Focus on a few things.
Speedmasters are probably my favorite watches but even I get tired of seeing a new edition of them every 30 seconds. It takes away from it in the end.
- Posts
- 662
- Likes
- 1,580
- Posts
- 223
- Likes
- 278
- Posts
- 594
- Likes
- 1,446
Vinz Clortho
·
- Posts
- 151
- Likes
- 129
njlam
·I currently have 3 Omegas, but nothing else in their current catalog appeals to me.
Conversely, while I have 4 Rolexes, there are 2-6 configurations in their current catalog I would buy if offered. Similarly, I only have 1 Patek, but there are 2-4 models in their current catalog I would buy is offered.
Omega needs more more attractive watches. Some are close, but not close enough.
Smaller, thinner are good places to start. Better bracelets...a pure GMT....is anyone listening?
Conversely, while I have 4 Rolexes, there are 2-6 configurations in their current catalog I would buy if offered. Similarly, I only have 1 Patek, but there are 2-4 models in their current catalog I would buy is offered.
Omega needs more more attractive watches. Some are close, but not close enough.
Smaller, thinner are good places to start. Better bracelets...a pure GMT....is anyone listening?
- Posts
- 1,501
- Likes
- 3,054
josiahg52
·I currently have 3 Omegas, but nothing else in their current catalog appeals to me.
Conversely, while I have 4 Rolexes, there are 2-6 configurations in their current catalog I would buy if offered. Similarly, I only have 1 Patek, but there are 2-4 models in their current catalog I would buy is offered.
Omega needs more more attractive watches. Some are close, but not close enough.
Smaller, thinner are good places to start. Better bracelets...a pure GMT....is anyone listening?
Opposite take: I own six Omegas and there are probably three more I'm considering, no Rolex and only an older model that interests me at all, and no Patek and nothing really interesting to me. I'm just a simpleton, though.
- Posts
- 2
- Likes
- 2
IMueller7
·This may or may not be the right place to post this, so please feel free to move it if needed by admin. (This is my first post....hi everyone) I just wanted to share that I am, what I consider to be, an enthusiast when it comes to Omega in general. I own a Rolex, and a Breitling, both of which are in regular rotation, but I have 4 Omegas from different lines all of which are METAS certified. This is functional for me because I work around equipment including MRI machines that only a METAS watch can handle. I realize that Tudor now has a couple of models with METAS, but my point is, if you want a watch that you can actually wear in such an environment, then Omega checks all the boxes. Sometimes nostalgic Rolex owners will use the term "tool watch." This in mind, I feel like Omega has been more innovative in creating automatic watches that can hold up to more modern hazards. So while the ability to handle pressures of 60 atmospheres at 600M such as the PO line may be a fun fact for conversation, we all know that the human wearing it cannot. On the other hand, if I wear my GMT Master II to work, I'll have a paperweight at worst, and a watch that stops and starts all day, making how many seconds it gains or loses in a day irrelevant at best.
- Posts
- 2
- Likes
- 2
IMueller7
·This may or may not be the right place to post this, so please feel free to move it if needed by admin. (This is my first post....hi everyone) I just wanted to share that I am, what I consider to be, an enthusiast when it comes to Omega in general. I own a Rolex, and a Breitling, both of which are in regular rotation, but I have 4 Omegas from different lines all of which are METAS certified. This is functional for me because I work around equipment including MRI machines that only a METAS watch can handle. I realize that Tudor now has a couple of models with METAS, but my point is, if you want a watch that you can actually wear in such an environment, then Omega checks all the boxes. Sometimes nostalgic Rolex owners will use the term "tool watch." This in mind, I feel like Omega has been more innovative in creating automatic watches that can hold up to more modern hazards. So while the ability to handle pressures of 60 atmospheres at 600M such as the PO line may be a fun fact for conversation, we all know that the human wearing it cannot. On the other hand, if I wear my GMT Master II to work, I'll have a paperweight at worst, and a watch that stops and starts all day, making how many seconds it gains or loses in a day irrelevant at best.
- Posts
- 1,743
- Likes
- 3,400
DoctorEvil
·This may or may not be the right place to post this, so please feel free to move it if needed by admin. (This is my first post....hi everyone) I just wanted to share that I am, what I consider to be, an enthusiast when it comes to Omega in general. I own a Rolex, and a Breitling, both of which are in regular rotation, but I have 4 Omegas from different lines all of which are METAS certified. This is functional for me because I work around equipment including MRI machines that only a METAS watch can handle. I realize that Tudor now has a couple of models with METAS, but my point is, if you want a watch that you can actually wear in such an environment, then Omega checks all the boxes. Sometimes nostalgic Rolex owners will use the term "tool watch." This in mind, I feel like Omega has been more innovative in creating automatic watches that can hold up to more modern hazards. So while the ability to handle pressures of 60 atmospheres at 600M such as the PO line may be a fun fact for conversation, we all know that the human wearing it cannot. On the other hand, if I wear my GMT Master II to work, I'll have a paperweight at worst, and a watch that stops and starts all day, making how many seconds it gains or loses in a day irrelevant at best.
- Posts
- 662
- Likes
- 1,580
Jakeys
·I currently have 3 Omegas, but nothing else in their current catalog appeals to me.
Conversely, while I have 4 Rolexes, there are 2-6 configurations in their current catalog I would buy if offered. Similarly, I only have 1 Patek, but there are 2-4 models in their current catalog I would buy is offered.
Omega needs more more attractive watches. Some are close, but not close enough.
Smaller, thinner are good places to start. Better bracelets...a pure GMT....is anyone listening?
I agree. I think this is to do with how Rolex and Omega have quite different approaches to their core models. Rolex mostly just slowly, iteratively improves. Omega takes bigger steps, and in my view many of them over the years have been in the wrong direction.
I don't think Omega should just reissue their 90's models but I wonder what today's SMP would look like if Omega had taken the Rolex approach and carefully iterated on the design instead of reinventing the wheel each decade.
The only watch Omega hasn't necessarily done that with is the Speedy Pro, and I think the current gen is quite highly regarded as a result, isn't it?
This may or may not be the right place to post this, so please feel free to move it if needed by admin. (This is my first post....hi everyone) I just wanted to share that I am, what I consider to be, an enthusiast when it comes to Omega in general. I own a Rolex, and a Breitling, both of which are in regular rotation, but I have 4 Omegas from different lines all of which are METAS certified. This is functional for me because I work around equipment including MRI machines that only a METAS watch can handle. I realize that Tudor now has a couple of models with METAS, but my point is, if you want a watch that you can actually wear in such an environment, then Omega checks all the boxes. Sometimes nostalgic Rolex owners will use the term "tool watch." This in mind, I feel like Omega has been more innovative in creating automatic watches that can hold up to more modern hazards. So while the ability to handle pressures of 60 atmospheres at 600M such as the PO line may be a fun fact for conversation, we all know that the human wearing it cannot. On the other hand, if I wear my GMT Master II to work, I'll have a paperweight at worst, and a watch that stops and starts all day, making how many seconds it gains or loses in a day irrelevant at best.
Omega does still lead in this space for sure, but it's worth noting current Rolexes are reasonably antimagnetic. Just this year, Rolex uplifted their Superlative Chronometer certification to include resistance to magnetism. I'm not sure if they've publicly stated their gauss target though.
I actually find it a bit of a laugh that the Milgauss, a watch that's supposedly designed to resist magnetism, can only deal with 1000 gauss.
I think you're being a little unfair, the last gen Milgauss came out in 2007, about six years before Omega debuted their first antimagnetic movement. It uses the same faraday cage based approach as the Railmaster used to, and in fact Omega did have a Railmaster out at the same time as the Milgauss was launched and it had precisely fuckall antimagnetism. I should know, I own it. 😁
It's only now in the era of modern antimagnetic materials becoming common across the range that the Milgauss seems pointless. But regrettably I'd say the same about the Railmaster, they're both now functionally obsolete and have been relegated to being "fun" dialled alternatives to the Explorer/Aqua Terra.
- Posts
- 3,916
- Likes
- 8,465
ErichPryde
··Seamasters ForeverYou know, I don't think 42mm watches are actually going away, despite all of the watch world comments that they are.
The more I wear my 42 mm s&p, the more I fall in love with it and disagree with this take. Perhaps, like Longines, they will offer both a 39 and 42 mm at some point.
Omega takes bigger steps, and in my view many of them over the years have been in the wrong direction
The more I wear my 42 mm s&p, the more I fall in love with it and disagree with this take. Perhaps, like Longines, they will offer both a 39 and 42 mm at some point.
- Posts
- 662
- Likes
- 1,580
Jakeys
·You know, I don't think 42mm watches are actually going away, despite all of the watch world comments that they are.
I didn't necessarily mean diameter. The older SMPs were 41mm, they're also nearly 20% thinner. The modern Sub is no thicker than the classic Subs.
- Posts
- 1,501
- Likes
- 3,054
josiahg52
·Owning a few different iterations of the Seamaster, I tire of the size discussion. The size discussion around the older “Peter Blake” Seamaster models like the 2254.50 versus the newer ceramic Seamaster Professionals tends to get exaggerated, to put it mildly.
Yes, modern Seamasters wear thicker and heavier. No argument there. But when you actually look at the numbers, the differences aren’t nearly as dramatic as the language suggests. We’re generally talking about a millimeter or so, not a completely different class of watch.
What has changed is how that thickness is distributed. Omega moved to:
- Ceramic bezel inserts - which require a thicker, more rigid support structure
-Ceramic dials - physically thicker than traditional metal dials
- A higher handset stack - driven by dial thickness
-Taller crystals - to clear the hands
All of that adds height above the bracelet line, which is why the watch wears thicker even if the underlying movement architecture hasn’t changed much.
The diameter discussion follows the same pattern. Most were fine with ~40–41 mm divers 20 years ago, and now a watch grows a millimeter - depending on how it’s measured - and it’s suddenly described as huge. That perception shift isn’t unique to Omega either.
Take the aforementioned Submariner. The Rolex Submariner 16610 versus the Rolex Submariner 126610 are very close on paper - roughly a 1 mm change in diameter and similar overall thickness - yet people still say the modern version wears larger. That comes down to broader lugs, ceramic bezel presence, and proportion changes, not a dramatic increase in raw size.
The same idea applies here. On thickness, you’ll see different percentages or comparisons thrown around depending on how people are measuring, i.e., edge of the crystal versus the center, what’s included in case height, and so on. However you frame it, you’re still ultimately dealing with roughly a millimeter or so of actual difference.
At that point, whether it’s 10%, 18%, or 20% isn’t really the important part. The bigger factor is how the watch is built - and where that added height sits - which is what drives the on-wrist feel.
This wasn’t arbitrary. The market pushed toward:
- More “premium” materials
Ceramic delivers on that, but it comes with structural trade-offs. You don’t get those materials in the same proportions as early 2000s aluminum and brass builds. If someone prefers the slimmer, more cuff-friendly feel of the older models, that’s completely fair. But framing modern Seamasters as if Omega is simply making bigger and bigger watches misses what actually changed. The difference is mostly materials and proportion, not a dramatic increase in size just for size's sake.
I want a Seamaster that goes back to original materials and then maybe we can judge Omega's design prowess and design direction. I hope they will go back to older proportions.
Yes, modern Seamasters wear thicker and heavier. No argument there. But when you actually look at the numbers, the differences aren’t nearly as dramatic as the language suggests. We’re generally talking about a millimeter or so, not a completely different class of watch.
What has changed is how that thickness is distributed. Omega moved to:
- Ceramic bezel inserts - which require a thicker, more rigid support structure
-Ceramic dials - physically thicker than traditional metal dials
- A higher handset stack - driven by dial thickness
-Taller crystals - to clear the hands
All of that adds height above the bracelet line, which is why the watch wears thicker even if the underlying movement architecture hasn’t changed much.
The diameter discussion follows the same pattern. Most were fine with ~40–41 mm divers 20 years ago, and now a watch grows a millimeter - depending on how it’s measured - and it’s suddenly described as huge. That perception shift isn’t unique to Omega either.
Take the aforementioned Submariner. The Rolex Submariner 16610 versus the Rolex Submariner 126610 are very close on paper - roughly a 1 mm change in diameter and similar overall thickness - yet people still say the modern version wears larger. That comes down to broader lugs, ceramic bezel presence, and proportion changes, not a dramatic increase in raw size.
The same idea applies here. On thickness, you’ll see different percentages or comparisons thrown around depending on how people are measuring, i.e., edge of the crystal versus the center, what’s included in case height, and so on. However you frame it, you’re still ultimately dealing with roughly a millimeter or so of actual difference.
At that point, whether it’s 10%, 18%, or 20% isn’t really the important part. The bigger factor is how the watch is built - and where that added height sits - which is what drives the on-wrist feel.
This wasn’t arbitrary. The market pushed toward:
- More “premium” materials
- Better long-term scratch resistance
- More visual presence
Ceramic delivers on that, but it comes with structural trade-offs. You don’t get those materials in the same proportions as early 2000s aluminum and brass builds. If someone prefers the slimmer, more cuff-friendly feel of the older models, that’s completely fair. But framing modern Seamasters as if Omega is simply making bigger and bigger watches misses what actually changed. The difference is mostly materials and proportion, not a dramatic increase in size just for size's sake.
I want a Seamaster that goes back to original materials and then maybe we can judge Omega's design prowess and design direction. I hope they will go back to older proportions.