Durability has never been a concern for me and I'd be equally as annoyed with a dented aluminum bezel as a shattered ceramic. I'd still be replacing it either way, so it's kind of a moot point to me.
I don't think there are better practical options than ceramic for bezels. Synthetic lab grown sapphire is close, but is equally likely to crack with shock forces as ceramic and costs a small fortune for thick large pieces.
Despite wrecking the stainless steel bezel, I personally have never damaged an aluminum bezel insert, but I know it can and does happen. I only have a few ceramic inserts, most of my watches have steel inserts, actually, and I wouldn't use those ceramic component watches like I did the aluminum ones in the day. The best practical material is just not ceramic (or sapphire). It is a fine material, can make a watch look great, but it's a real liability.
I was worried about scuffing the aluminium insert on my SMP when I got it, but I've had it coming up on eight years now and it still doesn't have any more than the faintest of scratches on it. They're not that precious, thankfully.
If I'm honest though, if I was gonna buy a newer reference, I think I would prefer ceramic. Chances are, any damage that will break a ceramic bezel will dent/gouge aluminium so badly you'd be replacing it regardless, I agree with Dirk063 on that.
We can clearly say that based on customer feedback that the pressure valve is going
We can clearly say that based on customer feedback that the pressure valve is going and that the bracelet will taper and be a lighter design.
Based on market trends, the watch will be smaller (maybe 1mm) and will either be no-date or have a no date option.
Everything else is pure speculation.
Huh? This is all pure speculation. Omega don't always do what watch enthusiasts expect them to.
The only thing I would bet money on is they slightly reduce the thickness. The new PO is still 600M and yet is now only 0.2mm thicker at 13.8 mm vs 13.6mm for the SMP. The Submariner is 12.5mm. However you land on the thickness argument, those numbers are not flattering to the SMP and given the PO was slimmed down, I'm very confident the SMP will be as well. I have no idea how far they'll go to achieve it though, I'd want them to match the Sub but there's no way they will IMO. Probably around 13.0mm is my guess.
and the new PO is 177g, the 300m is 195g. The new PO is 47.1mm lug-to-lug the 300m is 50mm. The 300m might not make all the innovations of the PO due to the cost. It needs to be a lower price point.
I don't think the new PO has any material innovations in it that the SMP doesn't already. I think they could do everything they've done to the new PO to the new SMP without needing to change the price point. Of course, they will raise the price because they can but they don't need to raise it anywhere near the PO.
Actually the new PO if anything is likely cheaper to manufacture than the old one. No date, no display back, no HEV, less materials as it's smaller, and the new bezel seems to have repeatedly documented QC issues so I'd wager there was cost cutting there but I can't substantiate that.
and the new PO is 177g, the 300m is 195g. The new PO is 47.1mm lug-to-lug the 300m is 50mm. The 300m might not make all the innovations of the PO due to the cost. It needs to be a lower price point.
The new PO is 600m not 300m. It has a titanium inner shell to do away with the helium valve which is a new innovation.
The ultra deep uses a lot of advanced titanium construction, is part of the planet ocean line, and has not had an external HeV since its creation. The new planet ocean case leans into the UD design (in addition to taking design cues from some '70s Omega divers, and let's not forget that the planet ocean has always been a successor to the 165.024 in terms of dial and case elements)
My assessment exactly.
I do think they went a bit too far with the architectural angles, but I think I understand where they thought they needed to go with the PO.
After all it started out as something with the version 1 of the PO and progressively morphed it in the same direction into something that didn't make any sense or have any logic at all behind it from an end users perspective.bit became a mere curiosity occupying another space in the display cabinets.
I'm not sure they were selling all that well either.
I think Omega knew they had to do something to prevent it from potentially becoming extinct.
This 4th generation is a desperate attempt to reinvent the PO and loop back to Omega roots in the process.
Getting rid of the wart was inevitable.
The UD is a prime example of the redundancy of the wart. Keeping the wart is a retrograde step altogether.
After all, Seiko have never needed it.
Just my 2 cents worth and I'm all in on the gen 4.
My assessment exactly.
I do think they went a bit too far with the architectural angles, but I think I understand where they thought they needed to go with the PO.
After all it started out as something with the version 1 of the PO and progressively morphed it in the same direction into something that didn't make any sense or have any logic at all behind it from an end users perspective.bit became a mere curiosity occupying another space in the display cabinets.
I'm not sure they were selling all that well either.
I think Omega knew they had to do something to prevent it from potentially becoming extinct.
This 4th generation is a desperate attempt to reinvent the PO and loop back to Omega roots in the process.
Getting rid of the wart was inevitable.
The UD is a prime example of the redundancy of the wart. Keeping the wart is a retrograde step altogether.
After all, Seiko have never needed it.
Just my 2 cents worth and I'm all in on the gen 4.
The HEV was a design choice
My assessment exactly.
I do think they went a bit too far with the architectural angles, but I think I understand where they thought they needed to go with the PO.
After all it started out as something with the version 1 of the PO and progressively morphed it in the same direction into something that didn't make any sense or have any logic at all behind it from an end users perspective.bit became a mere curiosity occupying another space in the display cabinets.
I'm not sure they were selling all that well either.
I think Omega knew they had to do something to prevent it from potentially becoming extinct.
This 4th generation is a desperate attempt to reinvent the PO and loop back to Omega roots in the process.
Getting rid of the wart was inevitable.
The UD is a prime example of the redundancy of the wart. Keeping the wart is a retrograde step altogether.
After all, Seiko have never needed it.
Just my 2 cents worth and I'm all in on the gen 4.
The PO is a new range from 2005 and has no heritage.
The new PO is the best ever as it is much more wearable
