New 2026 Pie-Pan Constellation Observatory Model Out Now (Pics / Video)

bgrisso · Thurs. 5:10pm

The issue is not the lack of seconds hand, it's re-issuing this particular watch without a second hand, while simultaneously focusing much of the marketing material on accuracy to the second. Like that fact that no one has ever gotten master chronometer certification for a two hander watch in the history of the universe. No shit, nobody else is that dumb. What a waste of time. 🤣

If this was just a new watch being released without a second hand, whatever, you can like it or not.

dsio · Thurs. 5:42pm

I wonder, given the 8914 is based on the 8912 if it’s almost the same movement but with the actual hand omitted like the vintage Cal 712 which came with or without it, or if the added thickness of the Piepan dial increased the hand height significantly enough that rather than it being for aesthetics, it was omitted out of necessity for clearance reasons

gatorcpa · Thurs. 7:10pm

dsio
I wonder, given the 8914 is based on the 8912 if it’s almost the same movement but with the actual hand omitted like the vintage Cal 712 which came with or without it, or if the added thickness of the Piepan dial increased the hand height significantly enough that rather than it being for aesthetics, it was omitted out of necessity for clearance reasons

I would think that if Piaget can figure out how to make an Ultra-thin watch with a seconds hand, then Omega could figure it out also.

To be clear, I don't object to the aesthetics of the overall design, although I admit to not understanding the concept of a master chronometer that can only be tested on a timing machine.

This watch reminds me of a camel...that is a horse designed by committee. IMO, Omega did not want to spend the money on a thinner version of the Co-Axial movement, so they just plucked a couple of parts off the existing 8912 movement and designed around that compromise.

It's disappointing when you know they can do better and choose not to.
gatorcpa

Jakeys · Thurs. 7:11pm

gatorcpa
It's disappointing when you know they can do better and choose not to.
gatorcpa

Increasingly, this sums up modern Omega as a whole...

Caliber561 · Thurs. 7:20pm

Among other things, ditching the classic cursive typeface for some generic fancy font was also a miss.
Quick mockup of what the dial text could have been. A professional designer would have been able to do a better job, but I think it gets the point across.

I do think the original "Constellation" script would have been the best option to have (After all, you look at the successful Seamaster models, and they don't say Aqua Terra, Planet Ocean, Diver 300m, etc. on the front. Instead, it's kept to the back. Why was this different? Who knows?)

bananapeanut · Thurs. 9:24pm

It’ll end up being another watch that sells for $10K at the boutique and $4K on the secondary market.

cristos71 · Fri. 1:21am

So when I have a super accurate watch I'll set it to the second with the atomic clock so I can track it's accuracy with pride.

How would I be tracking accuracy with this one?

Aludic · Fri. 3:37am

cristos71
So when I have a super accurate watch I'll set it to the second with the atomic clock so I can track it's accuracy with pride.

How would I be tracking accuracy with this one?

Well, that's not so difficult. You will observe minute differences when you're using this as a daily wearer. 😅
(Which I guess very few people will...)

jlew715 · Fri. 6:26am

cristos71
So when I have a super accurate watch I'll set it to the second with the atomic clock so I can track it's accuracy with pride.

How would I be tracking accuracy with this one?

Simply put the watch under a microscope, exactly align the minute hand with one of the indices, and start the watch when its synced to the atomic clock. Then one day later, put the watch back under the microscope and check whether the hand is exactly aligned with the index again. If it's not, get out your protractor and measure the angle which it deviates from the center of the index and calculate how many seconds off it is! Easy peasy!

M'Bob · Fri. 8:00am

$7800 USD:

$59,100 USD? Love to know what they’re smoking….

Archer · Fri. 8:27am

jlew715
Are they? I was under the impression that "Master Chronometer" meant, well, Master Chronometer regardless if the watch had an 89xx or 88x movement.

No, just like with COSC, the tolerances vary for Master Chronometer based on the diameter of the movement.

gbesq · Fri. 8:41am

Longines Conquest Heritage with 38mm or 40mm with 11 variations for $3,300. Oh, and they also include a second hand. 😁 Not a pie pan, but a very nice looking watch.

Alvaro95 · Fri. 9:46am

Davidt
There’s another thread speculating on why there’s been negativity in various places, including YouTube/social media latterly around Omega. This is why.

Diameter: 1-2mm to large.
Thickness: same as above.
Case: not good enough. I understand the desire for an update rather than a straight reissue but this case is a mess and looks like a child designed it.
Dial: same. It looks like a poor redial to me.
No seconds hand: ridiculous.
Price: absurd.

Even getting 3 or 4 out of the 6 points above would have been something, but to swing and miss at all six is inexcusable and makes you wonder who is making not just marketing designs but setting the tone for design as well. To be aware of the desire for a model such as this and to get it so wrong is really poor.

I think this release is specially revealing on how out of touch with the market Omega is.

This is a mass-produced revival watch that feels soulless in terms of design, clumsy in execution and priced way beyond its reasonable market bracket.

The watch has no clear identity. It’s a lazy and inconsistent mix of vintage Connies design cues and modern elements unfitted to the character of the piece. The Constellation star mixed with that awful “Au” printing, dog-leg lugs but no decagonal crown… it all feels arbitrary and designed by committee. It’s only external appeal (the revival) gets tarnished by the incorporation of these unbefitting departures from the original.

Even taken on its own terms, without considering any design heritage, it’s a poorly executed watch in terms of dimensions -something everyone seems to have noticed instantly, except perhaps our dear friends at Fratello. No redesign of the movement means intolerable dimensions for a dress watch: it is thicker (12.23 vs 11.70) than the 300m Hydroconquest released the same day by Longines; it’s has almost the same lug-to-lug as the Speedmaster (47.50 vs 47.20).

Its other supposed selling point, accuracy, has been rendered useless by its own design and the lack of seconds hand -another unfortunate departure from the original. As others have mentioned, what’s exactly the point of a highly precise movement in a watch that can only be set imprecisely?

Finally, the price is simply outrageous. There are many possible comparisons that one could make at this range, but I think one is enough: the Canopus gold version (EUR 43.4k) is nearly 10k more expensive than the 6119R Calatrava (EUR 34.2k), which of course offers far better finishing, character and proportions.

This is specially disheartening when comparing to what other competitors have been doing. Rolex, for example, released the 1908 a few years ago: no faux revival narrative, just an attractive original design, excellent dimensions, a very good bracelet (although that came only last year), as well as an above average movement. That watch is more than EUR 20k cheaper than what Omega presented yesterday (EUR 58k vs EUR 36k in yellow gold with gold bracelet)

The sad part of the story is that none of this is surprising, and releases like this will continue to happen.

ErichKeane · Fri. 9:52am

Alvaro95
No redesign of the movement means intolerable dimensions for a dress watch:

Archer contends (and I agree), that the thickness of Omega watches is not because of the movements. They are as thin as just about everyone else's movements, so the thickness is a choice that is made for design reasons.

Archer · Fri. 10:03am

Alvaro95
Its other supposed selling point, accuracy, has been rendered useless by its own design and the lack of seconds hand -another unfortunate departure from the original. As others have mentioned, what’s exactly the point of a highly precise movement in a watch that can only be set imprecisely?

I don't know about you, but I am able to set the minute hand precisely at the 12 (or any other minute marker) pretty easily - it doesn't matter if the watch has a seconds hand or not.

It's just another METAS rated watch. It is no more accurate or inaccurate than any other, regardless of the presence of a seconds hand. The only thing they are emphasizing is a new procedure to measure to the METAS standards without the watch having a seconds hand.

My guess is that they didn't include a seconds hand to make this more of a dress watch. But what is wrong with having an accurate watch without a seconds hand? How often do people need to know the time to the second? Do you not want your minute hand to remain accurate for a long period of time? Do you want to have to reset it really often?

To say the accuracy is rendered useless is nothing but hyperbole...

ErichKeane · Fri. 10:21am

Archer
I don't know about you, but I am able to set the minute hand precisely at the 12 (or any other minute marker) pretty easily - it doesn't matter if the watch has a seconds hand or not.

It's just another METAS rated watch. It is no more accurate or inaccurate than any other, regardless of the presence of a seconds hand. The only thing they are emphasizing is a new procedure to measure to the METAS standards without the watch having a seconds hand.

My guess is that they didn't include a seconds hand to make this more of a dress watch. But what is wrong with having an accurate watch without a seconds hand? How often do people need to know the time to the second? Do you not want your minute hand to remain accurate for a long period of time? Do you want to have to reset it really often?

To say the accuracy is rendered useless is nothing but hyperbole...

I believe it is:

Omega has marketed METAS/etc as a premium (and thus worth 'more') product over a 'normal' movement. The above 'useless' is more of an approach of "why would I spend 'extra' money on a watch that is sub-5s/day, when in the 'worst' case it would take me a week to even NOTICE something like that (without a seconds hand).

cristos71 · Fri. 10:22am

M'Bob
$7800 USD:

$59,100 USD? Love to know what they’re smoking….

It is pretty ugly TBH

Archer · Fri. 10:23am

dsio
I wonder, given the 8914 is based on the 8912 if it’s almost the same movement but with the actual hand omitted like the vintage Cal 712 which came with or without it, or if the added thickness of the Piepan dial increased the hand height significantly enough that rather than it being for aesthetics, it was omitted out of necessity for clearance reasons

Of course a flatter dial is capable of making a thinner watch (the Piaget referenced by @gatorcpa being an example), so there's no doubt that the pie pan dial itself is in part a driver of the thickness of these watches. You are never going to make an ultra-thin watch when your dial is not flat.

Deleting the seconds hand does provide an opportunity to make the watch thinner in this case - whether Omega actually took that opportunity is another question. Looking at the crystal, it is 33.5 mm in diameter and just 3.35 mm tall, so it is not a tall crystal at all. If I compare that to say the crystal on a 168.005, that crystal is 5.5 mm tall. Now one is held in with a hard plastic seal, and the other a tension ring, so there are other differences, but this is a pretty low crystal generally.

If I look at the seal for the crystal of the new model, the height of that is 1.1 mm, so that would tell me that no more than 2.25 mm of crystal sticks out of the case. Some of that is above the bezel, but how much I can't tell. Just for reference, the back crystal is 2.6 mm tall.

I think most of the thickness here comes from the dial, which of course is the main feature of the watch...

Jakeys · Fri. 10:25am

Alvaro95
The watch has no clear identity. It’s a lazy and inconsistent mix of vintage Connies design cues and modern elements unfitted to the character of the piece. The Constellation star mixed with that awful “Au” printing, dog-leg lugs but no decagonal crown… it all feels arbitrary and designed by committee. It’s only external appeal (the revival) gets tarnished by the incorporation of these unbefitting departures from the original.

Even taken on its own terms, without considering any design heritage, it’s a poorly executed watch in terms of dimensions -something everyone seems to have noticed instantly, except perhaps our dear friends at Fratello. No redesign of the movement means intolerable dimensions for a dress watch: it is thicker (12.23 vs 11.70) than the 300m Hydroconquest released the same day by Longines; it’s has almost the same lug-to-lug as the Speedmaster (47.50 vs 47.20).

Its other supposed selling point, accuracy, has been rendered useless by its own design and the lack of seconds hand -another unfortunate departure from the original. As others have mentioned, what’s exactly the point of a highly precise movement in a watch that can only be set imprecisely?

Finally, the price is simply outrageous. There are many possible comparisons that one could make at this range, but I think one is enough: the Canopus gold version (EUR 43.4k) is nearly 10k more expensive than the 6119R Calatrava (EUR 34.2k), which of course offers far better finishing, character and proportions.

This is specially disheartening when comparing to what other competitors have been doing. Rolex, for example, released the 1908 a few years ago: no faux revival narrative, just an attractive original design, excellent dimensions, a very good bracelet (although that came only last year), as well as an above average movement. That watch is more than EUR 20k cheaper than what Omega presented yesterday (EUR 58k vs EUR 36k in yellow gold with gold bracelet)

Welcome to the forum!

I agree with most points. I think some aspects of the older Constellation can remain in the past, the decagonal crown for example I'm glad they dropped. On the whole I like the general styling of the new model, but I think the size and lack of seconds hand are really bad and the price is totally unrealistic. Particularly the precious metals.

The examples you've given of the Connie being thicker than Longines' new 300m diver and the gold model being more than a gold Patek 6119R are sobering. Omega is losing the plot.

ErichKeane
Archer contends (and I agree), that the thickness of Omega watches is not because of the movements. They are as thin as just about everyone else's movements, so the thickness is a choice that is made for design reasons.

I very recently argued this point on Reddit too. In that case it was about the divers, the 8800 is 4.6 mm thick yet the SMP is 13.6 mm thick, while the Rolex 3235 is a hair shy of 6.2 mm thick yet the Sub is 12.5 mm thick. The SMP does have a display caseback though, but regardless the movement isn't some big problem.

Archer · Fri. 10:30am

ErichKeane
I believe it is:

Omega has marketed METAS/etc as a premium (and thus worth 'more') product over a 'normal' movement. The above 'useless' is more of an approach of "why would I spend 'extra' money on a watch that is sub-5s/day, when in the 'worst' case it would take me a week to even NOTICE something like that (without a seconds hand).

But METAS is just Omega's standard certification for their movements - you aren't paying "extra" because this is just what Omega does.

Would people feel better if they used a movement that wasn't METAS certified? Then people would complain they aren't using the most accurate movement they could have, they cheaped out, etc.

New 2026 Pie-Pan Constellation Observatory Model Out Now (Pics / Video)

bgrisso

dsio

gatorcpa

Jakeys

Caliber561

bananapeanut

cristos71

Aludic

jlew715

M'Bob

Archer

gbesq

Alvaro95

ErichKeane

Archer

ErichKeane

cristos71

Archer

Jakeys

Archer

Similar threads

New SS Pie Pan Constellation 168.005 Acquired

Omega Constellation dog leg, pie pan with arrowhead markers: my new incoming and research

Recently serviced, Pie-pan Constellation Ref. 14393 on BOR Bracelet

Speedmaster Speedy Tuesday 2, “Ultraman LE” - Out Now! (Live Pics and Video)

14k Pie-pan Constellation 168.005 Cal. 564 authenticity assistance requested

1959 Pie Pan Constellation