Here is my almost one of a kind SMP because they only made the 1438 cal model for 1993. This watch is SR# 54xxxxxx desiganating a 1993 manufacture. Omega had originally designed the New James Bond Model SMP Quartz with the 1438 cal. movement but it was also suppose to have the 1441 cal. dual oscillator and thermo-compensated timing board. My watch has that combination and runs consistently in the 4 SPY accuracy range. It is really rare because of the 1438 6 jeweled movement and being S.& 18K Gold two-tone. Beautiful example of a 24 year old watch. What do you all think.
I'm not so sure that your watch left the factory with the 1441 movement. Omega only used the 1441 for about a year in the first Seamaster 200m pre-bond model between 1987/8.
The first New James Bond Seamaster 300 Professional Quartz models in 1993 were originally designed to have the 1438/1441 cal. combination movement. Omega's marketing department very quickly changed their minds, because it made the automatic Seamaster's look dismal in the accuracy department + other benefits that the quartz model had over it. It would have cut to deeply into the sales of the automatic's. They changed the quartz model to the 1538 cal movement for 1994. That model year would not accept the 1441 cal. timing module because of the 2nd. quartz oscillator that it had. Thus all other Omega Seamaster 300 Pro. Quartz models had the 1538 cal. movements with only a +/- 15 SPM accuracy spec.My watch runs better than the +/- 4 SPY accuracy that I stated. Rolex made the same marketing decision in the 1980's to discontinue their Rolex OysterQuartz models. Just like the 1438/1441 cal. Seamaster, it was too good, and had many more + attributes over their automatic line of watches. In both cases they made watches that would have taken away sales of their automatic lines of watches.
That is the 1438 cal ETA 255.461 module in the watch. (notice that number in lower left hand corner of the pic showing the movement.) Only year they put the Omega 1438/ETA 255.461in the New Seamaster was for year 1993. It is also the only module other than the original 1441 cal. module that was made to accept the 2nd. quartz oscillator. They did have a 1438 cal. timing module with a single oscillator that also worked in the place of the 1441 cal. dual oscillator and T/C controlled timing module. The 1538 cal. movement from 1994 forward was a different ETA base module, because it had the quick date set feature. Cost was not the problem for the 1441 cal.being discontinued, it was a much superior movement to the Automatic movements, and actually overall cost was less to manufacturer.. Why buy an automatic with +/- 5 seconds per day accuracy, can take less shock, and is more prone to magnetic fields over the Quartz model. Same reasoning for the Rolex QyaterQuartz watch on why they discontinued it. I have owned this watch new since December 1993.
Well, by your reasoning, Omega would have never made an automatic Seamaster if the 1441 was so superior in performance and cheaper than the 1109 to buy in from ETA. And the reason Rolex discontinued the Oysterquartz was because it didn't sell. So are you stating that this watch which you have had since new was bought new with the 1441 movement?
I bought it new with the 1438 cal. ETA 255.461 movement in 1993. I found out from an old Omega watchmaker, about why the 1438 cal. movement was supposed to have had the 1441 cal. timing module. I changed out the 1438 cal. timing module (6) screws with an "NOS" 1441 cal. timing module that I had bought new from a Swiss watchmaker. Simple 1/2 hour operation, and the 1438 cal. base indeed had the machined cut out for the 2nd oscillator that the 1441 module had. According to the old Omega watchmaker, a few actually left the factory as I have my watch now. It was the way it was intended to be, and it is still all Omega. There will always be "Auto" heads that will only buy automatic watches. The debate of automatics vs. quartz rages on. I have had plenty of Rolex automatics with the last being a S&18K Rolex Submariner. Best accuracy was about 5 seconds per day on a good day. The 4-5 year Rolex service was terrible, and the cost was extravagant. In 24 years I have spent less on maintaining my Omega, than with one Rolex servicing cost. Neither Rolex or Omega advertised or promoted their Quartz watches properly. They really didn't want to be associated with the negative Quartz connotation. When Seiko first came out with the cheap quartz watches, they have always had a cheap handle put on them. In the case of my Omega Seamaster "SQ" (6) jeweled watch movement that I have, it is more accurate, more durable, has a higher Gauss rating, than the Omega Automatic Seamaster, and the Quartz model actually cost less when both were new. I am a retired sales engineer and know marketing. They never promoted their Quartz watches accept being in the James Bond movie "Golden Eye." Omega decided to sell the "sizzle" not the steak in the case of their automatics. Plus, they sold the automatics which were inferior watches for more money and profit. They were competing with Rolex automatics. Omega and Rolex built their brands on intricate multi jeweled and complex automatic movements. That's why they also charge a lot of money on 4-5 year servicing. Omega won't sell most of their parts to individual watchmakersanymore, so as to force their customers to send their watches back to an Omega service center. Again, a marketing decision. Most of their sales are now done through Omega Boutiques and not in an up-scale jewelry store. I replace my own batteries about every 3 years for $3.00 and a "WR" test at my local watch maker for $20. I have had the seals and "O" rings changed out twice in 24 years, for about $200 at a local watchmaker. Rolex servicing is about $500-$600 if you want to keep up the 300m "WR" rating and keep it running properly. Same goes for Omega serving on their automatics.
I'm pleased you like quartz watches - as I have said to people here before there is a lot more to them than most people understand. You might want to have a look at this: https://omegaforums.net/threads/quartz-watches-some-information-some-may-find-interesting.5475/ You can buy a $20 digital quartz at Walmart that will outperform mechanical watches, so by that logic I think you overpaid for your Omega quartz. BTW - the portion of your post above is factually incorrect - I am an independent watchmaker and order all manner of parts directly from Omega weekly - sometimes twice a week. There is a process to get approved to purchase parts from Omega, and if you have a decently equipped modern shop, the requirements won't be much more than you already have. Cheers, Al
Hardly overpaid for a beautiful S&18K Gold Omega watch. What is overpaying, is paying out $6500 for a new Omega Planet Ocean or almost $10K for a Rolex Submariner. I stand corrected about the Omega parts, if you can still get parts, keep up the good work. As a watchmaker. you should have known about the 1438 cal. single oscillator movement that came in the 1993 model year Seamaster 300 Professional Quartz Watch only. My Omega has served me very well, and worth every bit of what I paid for it in 1993 which was, I believe about $3800 OTD. It still looks like a million bucks, and it is the last of my great watch collection, which included Rolex's, Brietling's and other high end watches. I'm 70 y.o. and saved the best to last. People pay large amounts of money for high end automatic watches, which by there very nature are constantly fighting, gravity and resistance. Rolex's are the most faux duplicated watches in the world, and have lost their exclusivity IMO. The newer Seamaster's just don't have the same visual appeal as the older ones In 24 years, at board meetings and with many colleagues, I have never run across another S&18K Gold Omega Seamaster300 Professional in either Automatic or Quartz. Now, that is exclusivity, and why it is a unique and valuable watch.
I just read your original post again and it jogged my memory. There was a guy on TZ 2 or 3 years ago who did exactly what you have done, except he took the 1441 out of his pre-bond and swapped it for the 1438 in the SS/18k Seamaster he had had since new. He also was into TT Submariners if I remember correctly. So you may be right in calling your watch "Almost" one of a kind. And now having read that you consider your watch unique and valuable as you have never seen another one in the 24 years that you've owned it, I suppose it's quite likely yours is actually the same watch .
"According to the old Omega watchmaker, a few actually left the factory as I have my watch now. It was the way it was intended to be, and it is still all Omega." I suppose that some people, despite what the old Omega watchmaker claims would call yours a frankenwatch. That may be a matter of opinion, but even if you were to apply that description, it's a very nice frankenwatch that actually improves, in terms of accuracy, on on how it was when it originally left the factory. I found the topic reasonably interesting and a bit of digging seems to show that retrofitting the thermocompensated elements to a 1438 is a reasonably well documented mod see see http://forums.watchuseek.com/f9/omega-seamaster-300m-eta-255-563-a-130103-7.html for example. As such, I applaud your improvement to the mechanism and I hope you continue to wear it in good health and with pleasure.