- Posts
- 286
- Likes
- 206
chrisb732
·They look good but I can't help laugh when thinking of all the people who have been wanting a thinner watch. But who knows maybe that is still in the mix I mean it is Omega Days so maybe there is more to come.
New 2022 Omega Ultra Deep Line Out Today
- Posts
- 27,685
- Likes
- 70,364
Archer
··Omega Qualified Watchmaker
- Posts
- 1,046
- Likes
- 5,432
- Posts
- 254
- Likes
- 232
- Posts
- 180
- Likes
- 310
- Posts
- 407
- Likes
- 538
savio.79
·Can I suggest to erase the "today" word from the title? 😀
- Posts
- 984
- Likes
- 3,001
vitriol
·
- Posts
- 3,255
- Likes
- 21,511
Dsloan
·I really like the dial design and colorways quite a lot. But, between the price and the size...
- Posts
- 1,486
- Likes
- 1,918
Fatcat
·Well we will be to be patient , presentation in OB end of March , deliveries this summer keep cool 😀))))
- Posts
- 238
- Likes
- 750
Cod Holliday
·I really like the dial design and colorways quite a lot. But, between the price and the size...
- Posts
- 7
- Likes
- 2
GMPHK
·That would be nice
- Posts
- 88
- Likes
- 236
raclaims
·I have the deep sea and the Cameron deep sea as well and never thought anyone would release a watch thicker than a Cameron dssd
I don’t know abt this. The dssd is massive to the point of almost looking silly so this is even more so
I don’t know abt this. The dssd is massive to the point of almost looking silly so this is even more so
- Posts
- 1,438
- Likes
- 2,208
scapa
·My favorite is the Ti version. It is by far the most interesting of the bunch, with the Manta lugs and no crownguards. I'm curious to see them at the OB whenever I get the chance. The steel versions look a bit too Deep Sea-ish... And the other guys did it first...
Am I a buyer ? Certainly not at that price. Frankly speaking it is just a curiosity and (IMO) as much a concept watch as it's predecessor. There is no real life scenario where any human could need those specs. 1000m is over-engineering, 6000m is solving problems no human being will ever have.
One interesting development, though, is the absence of the He valve. The watch is advertised as intended for saturation diving, meaning it is He intrusion proof. Not a first (the Ploprof, the 1000 and the Seiko Tunas are like that too), but interesting nonetheless. I would love to see this feature migrate down to a normal PO.
The brushed ceramic bezel also looks nice, and very tool-ish on a Ti watch. But this one below also has a brushed ceramic bezel (and fully lumed) for quite a bit less $.
The Tudor Pelagos, with its Ti case and bracelet, matte ceramic lumed bezel and saturation-diving capabilities without a manual HEV is perhaps another ancestor here. I love mine, and it's a heck of a diver, even in deep, murky lake dives.
I really like these. Looking forward to seeing it in the O-MEGASTEEL alloy, as it were.
- Posts
- 886
- Likes
- 470
Duckie
·All 4 of those Omegas are better aesthetically than the Rolexes.
You may well be right, but I'll reserve judgement until I get to see them in person.
Of particular interest to me are the steel UD's in that the material looks pretty classy all polished up like they are. But the mixture of offerings and the variations between the configurations has me distressingly puzzled.
- Posts
- 886
- Likes
- 470
Duckie
·I have the deep sea and the Cameron deep sea as well and never thought anyone would release a watch thicker than a Cameron dssd
I don’t know abt this. The dssd is massive to the point of almost looking silly so this is even more so
I'm like yourself in that i have both in the 116660's
I'm above average in size but I consider the 116660 to be at my absolute Iimit for wearability.
Someone has mentioned the JC looks like a bit of a dogs breakfast in comparison to the UD equivalent and I might be inclined to agree in that the UD is more streamlined, stylish and cohesive. But it ought to be in that Omega have had 6 or so years to contemplate how they'll package the UD.
I'm a little flabbergasted that Omega couldn't manage to shave some thickness off it to make it more wearable than than the DSSD in terms of thickness but still manage to out do Rolex with the depth rating.
It's not like Omega didn't have sufficient opportunity🙁
- Posts
- 56
- Likes
- 85
Vogelphoenix
·D DuckieI'm a little flabbergasted that Omega couldn't manage to shave some thickness off it to make it more wearable than than the DSSD in terms of thickness but still manage to out do Rolex with the depth rating.
It's not like Omega didn't have sufficient opportunity🙁
The Ultra Deep can handle more than 50% higher pressure than the Deep Sea with a few percent increase in thickness (18.2 vs 17.6mm). That seems quite a engineering feat, given that the integrity of the crystal is one of the main concerns. The Ultra Deep crystal is almost the same thickness as the Deep Sea crystal (~5mm), while the original 15000m Ultra Deep crystal is 10mm. Given that no commercially available mechanical watch comes close to the Ultra Deep it seems a little odd to be "flabbergasted". As far as I know the only dive watch that breaks the thickness vs depth rating trend is the Sinn UX, but that one needs an oil change every time you change the movement battery...
- Posts
- 1,438
- Likes
- 2,208
scapa
·The Ultra Deep can handle more than 50% higher pressure than the Deep Sea with a few percent increase in thickness (18.2 vs 17.6mm). That seems quite a engineering feat, given that the integrity of the crystal is one of the main concerns. The Ultra Deep crystal is almost the same thickness as the Deep Sea crystal (~5mm), while the original 15000m Ultra Deep crystal is 10mm. Given that no commercially available mechanical watch comes close to the Ultra Deep it seems a little odd to be "flabbergasted". As far as I know the only dive watch that breaks the thickness vs depth rating trend is the Sinn UX, but that one needs an oil change every time you change the movement battery...
I have the UX, and it's a terrific watch, and the battery lasts a good few years, although it isn't the brightest in murky water. There have also been a few Seiko Professional models that have hit impressive depths. A quartz Marinemaster SBBN013 managed 3284m/ 2.04 miles, while its automatic cousin the Marinemaster SBDX011 made it to 4299m/ 2.67 miles.
But the UD is something else.
- Posts
- 2,026
- Likes
- 7,157
MTROIS
·I have the deep sea and the Cameron deep sea as well and never thought anyone would release a watch thicker than a Cameron dssd
I don’t know abt this. The dssd is massive to the point of almost looking silly so this is even more so
I had been waiting for Omega to issue a commercial version of the UD so I really look forward to seeing it in the metal at my OB this Summer. The aesthetics are quite appealing to me, including the color scheme.
One aspect I feel is a bit weaker on the Omega UD side when compared to the Rolex DSSD one: the story surrounding it. I know it is only marketing, but I must admit that I quite enjoy the James Cameron / National Geographic story line.
Edit 1: the UD will also appear thicker still due to the NATO strap on the Ti version… so will have to check if this raises to the hamburger level of the Z-33…
…and Edit 2: the price!!! 😵💫
- Posts
- 111
- Likes
- 134
MHBsheep
·Smaller and thinner one in the future would be nice
- Posts
- 886
- Likes
- 470
Duckie
·The Ultra Deep can handle more than 50% higher pressure than the Deep Sea with a few percent increase in thickness (18.2 vs 17.6mm). That seems quite a engineering feat, given that the integrity of the crystal is one of the main concerns. The Ultra Deep crystal is almost the same thickness as the Deep Sea crystal (~5mm), while the original 15000m Ultra Deep crystal is 10mm. Given that no commercially available mechanical watch comes close to the Ultra Deep it seems a little odd to be "flabbergasted". As far as I know the only dive watch that breaks the thickness vs depth rating trend is the Sinn UX, but that one needs an oil change every time you change the movement battery...
You've just illustrated my point exactly.
Think of it this way.
If Omega had matched or slightly bettered the DSSD, AND stayed under the thickness of the DSSD. They would've kicked every goal imaginable. Hense why I'm flabbergasted🙁
Instead, from a practical point of view it seems as though one of their goals was to better(numerically higher) the DSSD in thickness.
It's a complete retrograde step.
Either watch is absurdly water proof.
Why reinforce just how utterly pointless they are by making the single biggest practical complaint against the DSSD, completely null and void.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy them exploring the concept and developing it to the full whilst improving at the same time. I also celebrate the UD and what they've done with the new steel.
But seriously. What are the people at Omega thinking?
To top it all off. Omega have not taken advantage of the potential(other than lighter weight) for Titanium to be made into a thinner watch(if that's at all possible)?
I don't know👎 Maybe SS is the best material to make thinner watches?
Besides, anyone in their class can make a Titanium watch which by nature is lighter, so that's not a big deal in of itself.
For Omega, it's an opportunity lost at this point🙁
