Yes. I wish I could like this 100 times because it's exactly what would happen.
Let's be honest, it wouldn't end anything.
A “perfect” modern 166.024-style Seamaster wouldn't end the discussion, it would just move it.
If Omega released something very close to the vintage proportions, you’d probably see a mix of reactions like:
- “It’s not exactly the same size” - even if it’s within a millimeter
- “They cheaped out on materials” - if it uses aluminum, a traditional dial, solid caseback, etc.
- “There’s no innovation here” - if it leans too heavily on vintage construction
- “Why is it so expensive for what it is” - especially if it looks simple but still carries a modern Omega price
- “They should have used ceramic / display back / modern features” - from the other side of the market (make it "premium feeling")
- “It’s just a reissue” - if it stays too close visually
- “They changed too much” - if they modernize any detail
And if they went further and designed a movement specifically to keep the proportions tight, then you’d get:
- “They spent all that effort and it’s still not exactly like the original”
- “Why does this cost more than the standard Seamaster?”
So instead of ending the debate, you’d just end up with two camps:
- People who want vintage proportions and simplicity
- People who want modern materials and features
And those two goals don’t always coexist in the same watch without trade-offs.
That’s basically the situation
now, just separated by a decade or two instead of half a century.
