I'm the proud new owner of an SMP300 silver dial, but I have to say that I'm bitterly disappointed about the quality of the lume. I'm astonished that with all their attention detail and refinement of the work on such a beautiful watch that Omega would do such a crappy job on the hands and pips. Don't get me wrong - it's beautifully applied, but nearly useless.

Is it just my watch? Did I get a 'lemon'? Is there some sort of 'break-in' process I need to know about?

 

It might help if you posted photos?

 

Hard to take a photo in the dark with nearly no lume...

 

Aaah, not just the lume but problems with your lights as well .......

 

I assume you're being sarcastic. How will turning on the lights to take a photo help with depicting the inadequate level of lume?

 

Because of the skeleton hands the lume is indeed applied very thin and less functional as it fades faster.

 

I'm not talking about just the hands. Even the pips are barely visible after about a half hour after dark. Apparently I'm not the only one to notice this, other reviewers have mentioned it also. I thought at first they were just being obsessive, but now, not so much.

 

Even you might appreciate that if you’re asking OF members to comment on your watch, and tell you if it’s the lemon you mention, giving us a chance to look at photos of the dial and hands, preferably high resolution, might give us a chance to give you an opinion.

 

There is no break in period for lume. I assume you've tried charging it under a bright light prior to assessing whether the lume is useless, correct? From my experience, Omega and Seiko have the best lume on any modern sport watch, with Omega's being a little brighter, but with Seiko's lasting longer. By comparison, the lume on my Explorer II leaves a lot to be desired, with the Chromalight being the least bright and having shortest duration.

Here, I've just set my Seamaster in a shadow. Even in broad daylight, the lume is very visible.

 

Please post a photo of your watch without lumes and another with 30 seconds UV light from torch thrown at it. It would help us to evaluate properly.

 

Ok, here 'ya go.

 

Ah. Now there's an explanation that makes sense, and follows my experience so far. It's OK within about a half hour after the lights go out, but in the middle of the night, not so much. I was driving home the other night around 9PM (making it hours after dark) and could barely see the watch face, hence my question.

 

If you want good lume, buy a Ball. You can land a plane by those suckers.

I've never owned any watch that I could see in the dark after a few hours.

 

You just have to go back a couple generations on the SM300 line.

 

Super Lumninova needs about 20 minutes to "fully charge", i read on its spec sheet. So stick it in the sun or near a really bright light (LEDs sometimes emit enough UV to supercharge it) and then see how it is.

 

Oris pilot or Timex indiglo work for me

 

Starting to sound like it's just a limit of the technology. Seems others have observed the same thing in terms of brightness fade. I was just worried I got the "Friday" watch with defective lume.

No worries, guys. Thanks for putting my mind at ease.

PS - For the record, I just can't stop looking at this thing. What a beautiful design and execution! I had been very tempted by the Ulysse Nardin Marine Manufacture (1183-126-3), but at $8G, the Seamaster is just so much watch for the money, it's hard to ignore.

 

Unless you're night blind, you should be able to still see some glow with dark-adapted eyes after eight hours, assuming it's fully charged.

 

It would be very dim and your eyes would need to be dark adapted.

 

Mine is still easily visible at 5 or 6 am when I wake up. Yeah it’s not blinding like a PO, but easily visible. Have you tried giving it a quick blast with an LED torch before bed to see how well it lasts?