Is Omega Losing Its Way? Price Hikes and Brand Criticism

Vinz Clortho · Apr 22, 2026

Archer
I already have a Watchco but if I didn't and wanted the SM300, I would but the absolute worst vintage example I could find, as cheaply as possible. I would then exchange the case with Omega, get a new dial and hands, and service the movement. This would give me a perfectly water resistant and capable watch, that can be serviced by anyone (not co-axial).

Of course for everyone else you can get your local Omega certified watchmaker to do all this once you have the vintage piece.

Oddly enough, never thought about going that route. It's a genius idea and need to remember this for the future.

Mute · Apr 22, 2026

josiahg52
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.

I think Omega could satisfy these differing factions partially by given the vintage/classic fans what they want through the Seamaster 300 line and feed the modern crew through the standard Diver 300M, leaning heavily into the differences between the two model lines. The separation is already there, they should focus on how to capitalize on that.

josiahg52 · Apr 22, 2026

njlam
Have you tried on the new Observatory?

No.

Duckie · Apr 22, 2026

josiahg52
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.

They could simply give it the 321 Speedy treatment and then we would all see where it will land.

Duckie · Apr 22, 2026

Vinz Clortho
Believe we all want Omega to succeed and with the recent large price hikes and some decent/other not so much releases, along with the recent reports of declining sales (little murky on where they're at) has everyone scratching their heads.

The biggest thing are the recent stiff price increases with Omega which brings with it the increased scrutiny on their offerings in the market compared to the competitors. They've been pushing higher to compete directly with Rolex (they always did to an extent but they were more affordable then)

When you're going to be paying those kinds of prices, you better stack up and have a clear direction. Do they stack up, tough to make the case for that currently. What direction are they going in, tough to say what direction they're going in.

This is the most frustrating thing as I see it. We know what we want, but we don't know what Omega wants.

And now both Rolex and Omega have Seiko and Grand Seiko staking their claim in the 300 metre dive watch class where previously they were pretty much out of the range of Seiko and Grand Seiko while they were primarily playing in the 200 meter class.

stamplicker · Apr 23, 2026

Interesting thread. I don't really get all the gripe about too many models and not knowing the direction etc. I wanted a new 70s style watch. Rolex doesn't offer one, but Omega does. Would love a 70s style Sub with plexi and painted on indices. Omega offers that for me with the hesalite speedy. They offer a brand new 60's Speedmaster if I wanted that. Rolex doesn't. Omega offers a bunch of gaudy shit too for the Chinese market, but I've never seen that on their site as I don't look for it. I only know because I hear complaints. Rolex offers a bunch of gaudy shit too. Just as much as Omega, but I don't hear complaints about that.

DoctorEvil · Apr 23, 2026

S stamplicker
Interesting thread. I don't really get all the gripe about too many models and not knowing the direction etc. I wanted a new 70s style watch. Rolex doesn't offer one, but Omega does. Would love a 70s style Sub with plexi and painted on indices. Omega offers that for me with the hesalite speedy. They offer a brand new 60's Speedmaster if I wanted that. Rolex doesn't. Omega offers a bunch of gaudy shit too for the Chinese market, but I've never seen that on their site as I don't look for it. I only know because I hear complaints. Rolex offers a bunch of gaudy shit too. Just as much as Omega, but I don't hear complaints about that.

It's because the gaudy shit that Rolex offers is currently worth a lot more on the secondary market than Omega's gaudy shit. Rolex shit is a lot harder to buy at retail than Omega shit.

tjs1295 · Apr 23, 2026

josiahg52
Yeah, that’s kind of my point.

Depending on where you measure - case diameter vs bezel diameter - you can move the number around a bit. But once you’re down in that ~0.5–1 mm range, is there really a difference? I was just using case diameter because I think it affects wearability and lug-to-lug, but either way, the comparison still ends up in the same place. At that point, it’s more about proportions - lug-to-lug, thickness, how the height is distributed - than the raw diameter number itself.

I absolutely think 0.5 - 1 mm in the watch world makes a huge difference. Just spent a week with my brother, and a friend. Brother owns previous generation SMPc, Friend owns current Diver 300m. Same color, and everything, just one generation apart. Couldn't get over how much larger the current generation looks compared to the older. Totally different watch, yet just a mm or less separating them. Either way, I quit buying Omega watches for now, and it has nothing to do with price hikes.

josiahg52 · Apr 23, 2026

T tjs1295
I absolutely think 0.5 - 1 mm in the watch world makes a huge difference. Just spent a week with my brother, and a friend. Brother owns previous generation SMPc, Friend owns current Diver 300m. Same color, and everything, just one generation apart. Couldn't get over how much larger the current generation looks compared to the older. Totally different watch, yet just a mm or less separating them. Either way, I quit buying Omega watches for now, and it has nothing to do with price hikes.

It doesn't. 0.5mm especially is a measuring error, difference in measuring method and you can't tell the difference. You're reacting to a number, how it looks, and ultimately, the design and how the dimensions are proportioned, You're weren't comparing "identical" watches separated by a generation or slightly different dimensions. They're identical only in name and of completely different design and execution. That's what you felt and were reacting to. I'm not saying you didn't have the reaction or have a preference, I'm just stating what you were actually reacting to. It was a reaction to the design, not 0.5mm. That might be the same thing to some, I guess, but I don't think so and you and others may disagree.

Omega can change the design, it's a question of will they.

Endshake · Apr 23, 2026

Archer
I already have a Watchco but if I didn't and wanted the SM300, I would but the absolute worst vintage example I could find, as cheaply as possible. I would then exchange the case with Omega, get a new dial and hands, and service the movement. This would give me a perfectly water resistant and capable watch, that can be serviced by anyone (not co-axial).

You mean sending the watch in to Omega?

tjs1295 · Apr 23, 2026

josiahg52
It doesn't. 0.5mm especially is a measuring error, difference in measuring method and you can't tell the difference. You're reacting to a number, how it looks, and ultimately, the design and how the dimensions are proportioned, You're weren't comparing "identical" watches separated by a generation or slightly different dimensions. They're identical only in name and of completely different design and execution. That's what you felt and were reacting to. I'm not saying you didn't have the reaction or have a preference, I'm just stating what you were actually reacting to. It was a reaction to the design, not 0.5mm. That might be the same thing to some, I guess, but I don't think so and you and others may disagree.

Omega can change the design, it's a question of will they.

Holy smokes!! Now I'm not even sure what I was reacting to. I do know this though, both watches were previously mine. I gifted what is sometimes called the SMPc to my brother, and I gifted the Diver 300M to my friend. I loved the SMPc, but knew my brother also did, and he would never buy one for himself. I miss that watch. The Diver 300M felt like a bloated mess of what I previously owned. My friend really liked it. I definitely did not after giving it a try for a couple years. I do not miss that watch. Anyway, all I know now is that Omega currently does not make a dive watch (especially with a date function) that fits my wrist. They previously did make a dive watch that fit my wrist. And here's to hoping that someday they once again make a dive watch that fits my wrist. I'm sure they are doing a great job making watches that fit other people's wrist, just not mine.

Archer · Apr 23, 2026

Endshake
You mean sending the watch in to Omega?

You can send it in to Omega for a full service and new case, dial and hands, or you can have an Omega certified watchmaker do it all.

texasmade · Apr 23, 2026

josiahg52
It doesn't. 0.5mm especially is a measuring error, difference in measuring method and you can't tell the difference. You're reacting to a number, how it looks, and ultimately, the design and how the dimensions are proportioned, You're weren't comparing "identical" watches separated by a generation or slightly different dimensions. They're identical only in name and of completely different design and execution. That's what you felt and were reacting to. I'm not saying you didn't have the reaction or have a preference, I'm just stating what you were actually reacting to. It was a reaction to the design, not 0.5mm. That might be the same thing to some, I guess, but I don't think so and you and others may disagree.

Omega can change the design, it's a question of will they.

Well the design definitely makes the watch bigger and look bigger. I can compare my 2220.80 to the current Diver Pro 300M and the 1mm increase in diameter, thickness, and lug to lug makes the watch look huge on my wrist.

ErichPryde · Apr 23, 2026

josiahg52
It doesn't. 0.5mm especially is a measuring error, difference in measuring method and you can't tell the difference

While we generally agree on many things throughout this thread, I cannot agree with this statement. The human eye is capable of distinguishing objects down to almost 0.02 mm. People can determine if a painting or picture is 1/32" off level (about 0.8mm), and generally, our ability to perceive these differences becomes sharper the smaller the object is, while the larger the object, the more difficult it is to tell what difference these minute measurements make, especially as measurements relate to one another. Obviously the other factor is distance. We can discern individual human hairs (around 0.04 to 0.1mm thick), but the further away we are the more difficult this becomes.

Especially in regards to a 0.5 mm difference as how impacts the bezel or dial diameter or the relationship between the two, we can absolutely perceive that difference clearly (even if we can't quantify it very well).

As always, it's going to matter where and how these differences are. In terms of thickness 0.5 mm in the crystal is probably going to be more difficult to perceive than 0.5 mm in the mid case. 0.5mm in the case back is also going to be a lot more noticeable because it's likely going to translate to a larger spacing between the bracelet end links and our wrist.

I do agree that some of the measurement concerns are exaggerated, but we can perceive those differences.

(Edited to add: a great example of how we perceive the relationship between very small measurements is the human eye itself. The iris has a relatively fixed outer diameter of roughly 12mm, and the pupil has a general "normal" average diameter of 4mm. As the muscles in the iris contract to control the size of the pupil, the pupil changes from between 2 to 8 mm in diameter, and as this happens the iris appears to be much larger, or much smaller. This isn't that much different than the ratio between a dial and bezel. we can perceive minute changes in someone else's eyes, and in fact because the measurements of the system are so small, it is typically quite noticeable when someone's pupil has changed.)

foxtrot · Apr 23, 2026

I own these, that millimeter in radius in real life/use it is a ´lot´...I swear...and let us not began speaking of the thicknes..

ErichPryde · Apr 23, 2026

foxtrot
I swear...and let us not began speaking of the thicknes.

It's where we start comparing thickness that problems really emerge. The current, newest planet ocean saves just over 1 full millimeter in total thickness by switching to a flat crystal from a domed crystal:

Archer
So these now show up on the Omega Extranet, so I had a look at the case construction. Looking at how they reduced the thickness, the crystal was one thing I wanted to check.

The 3rd gen PO's used a domed crystal that has an overall height of 4.31 mm, and the crystal was 3.1 mm thick.

The 4th gen uses a flat 3 mm thick crystal.

So right there the thickness is reduced by 1.2 mm just by going to the flat crystal.

Omega consistently uses domed crystals, but despite this I have found that my heritage seamaster wears almost identically to a comparable 6 digit sub in thickness. If the heritage switched to a flat crystal, it would likely have a thickness of 12.4 to 12.6. remove the display caseback, and it would likely drop to 12.2 to 12.4mm thick. Both the current heritage and 6 digit sub weight approximately 150g- they're within just a few grams of one another. Most heritage owners aren't complaining about the thickness- despite it being on paper thicker than an SMP very slightly.

Our eyes are much better at perceiving the thickness of the case than the absolute total thickness measurement, because we can see through the crystal/it doesn't appear solid.

But... there's more visual case thickness in a 42mm SMP than either the heritage or a 6 digit sub (and the lack of delineation between bezel and case doesn't help our perception).

I guess my point- if I have one- is that while comparison may be the thief of joy, it's certainly really, really important because differences in our perception may be based upon subtle things.

njlam · Apr 23, 2026

The 3861 Speedmaster and the Seamaster Diver 300M are both 42mm and look vastly different from a size perspective (leaving thickness aside).

A smaller Speedy would look ridiculous. A smaller Seamaster would look fantastic.

ErichKeane · Apr 23, 2026

njlam
The 3861 Speedmaster and the Seamaster Diver 300M are both 42mm and look vastly different from a size perspective (leaving thickness aside).

A smaller Speedy would look ridiculous. A smaller Seamaster would look fantastic.

Eh, 42mm Speedmaster is a lie, it is really about 39mm. For some reason they think the crown guards are relevant in any single way.

noelekal · Apr 23, 2026

Oh, I don't know. Can a Speedmaster be passed through a 39mm hole bored in a plank?

ErichKeane · Apr 23, 2026

noelekal
Oh, I don't know. Can a Speedmaster be passed through a 39mm hole bored in a plank?

No, but neither can any other 39mm watch with a visible crown...