- Posts
- 72
- Likes
- 78
Jetguy87
路Hi all -- posting two pictures (sorry for the quality!) for some opinions: does this 300MC work on my wrist size (~6.5"), or does it look like a dinner plate? Thoughts and reasons for my question after the pics....
I've had it for just over three years (since late 2015) and love it, but the only thing that's kind of bothered me is the size, as I think it wears a bit big. When Omega announced the trilogy in 2017, I was thus very interested -- the trilogy Seamaster, with its 39 mm diameter and thinner case (I think the difference is around 1mm?) was very appealing.
I've tried the trilogy Seamaster on a few times. Although it's beautiful, and the smaller diameter is nice, it initially felt disproportionate. The thickness of the case, I felt, was not proportionate to its diameter. Put differently, even though the 300MC is both thick and wears big, the thickness and diameter match each other. The trilogy, on the other hand, seemed too thick for its overall size.
That said, I've gone back a few times and it's grown on me to the point that, if I come across one at the right price, I'm thinking about picking it up and selling my 300MC.
At the same time (and maybe I'm just rationalizing), there are clear things about the 300MC that I prefer: it's the only piece with a ceramic bezel in my collection and I like the dial more than the trilogy version (recessed hour markers, more texture on the dial itself, and less aggressive fauxtina). I also consider it a compromise between the extremes of the trilogy (or the original CK2913) and a PO (which I've occasionally thought about, but is way too big for me, even in the 2500 version). That is, it has vintage cues, but with its thicker bezel and overall proportions, it's closer to the size and presence of a PO. So the only thing that the trilogy has going for it is its size and more vintage-style feel.
I've had it for just over three years (since late 2015) and love it, but the only thing that's kind of bothered me is the size, as I think it wears a bit big. When Omega announced the trilogy in 2017, I was thus very interested -- the trilogy Seamaster, with its 39 mm diameter and thinner case (I think the difference is around 1mm?) was very appealing.
I've tried the trilogy Seamaster on a few times. Although it's beautiful, and the smaller diameter is nice, it initially felt disproportionate. The thickness of the case, I felt, was not proportionate to its diameter. Put differently, even though the 300MC is both thick and wears big, the thickness and diameter match each other. The trilogy, on the other hand, seemed too thick for its overall size.
That said, I've gone back a few times and it's grown on me to the point that, if I come across one at the right price, I'm thinking about picking it up and selling my 300MC.
At the same time (and maybe I'm just rationalizing), there are clear things about the 300MC that I prefer: it's the only piece with a ceramic bezel in my collection and I like the dial more than the trilogy version (recessed hour markers, more texture on the dial itself, and less aggressive fauxtina). I also consider it a compromise between the extremes of the trilogy (or the original CK2913) and a PO (which I've occasionally thought about, but is way too big for me, even in the 2500 version). That is, it has vintage cues, but with its thicker bezel and overall proportions, it's closer to the size and presence of a PO. So the only thing that the trilogy has going for it is its size and more vintage-style feel.
