It’s screw in and doesn’t line up. You’re just lucky if it does

 

Cool thanks!

 

I know i'm late but it actually should line up. Mine lines up perfect and fratello also wrote this:

"A less noticeable attribute of the Omega Seamaster 300 60th Anniversary is the fact that the case back always aligns the seahorse logo perfectly. Omega introduced this closure across most of its new pieces this year and it’s a nice touch."

https://www.fratellowatches.com/omega-seamaster-300-60th-anniversary-2/

 

Nope - that article is incorrect. The Trilogy Seamaster doesn't have the Naiad case back system, but a standard screw on case back. If it lines up, it's pure luck as rohnin has noted.

 

They have done an amazing job...…..They say best things come in threes but I could only pick one......

 

This is a bit of confusion with the Naiad term. The original Naiad was a water pressure based crown sealing system which I am told was not always good at shallow depths (lower pressure) so they moved to screw in crowns. They have reintroduced the Naiad term as a case lock on a lot of the new releases like the deep black so that always lines up. This re-issue Seamaster 300 has a standard screw case back so it is pot luck if that lines up. The crown still has a Naiad symbol as it is a 100% scanned replica ….. with thankfully a modern sealing system.

 

The Niad back has been confirmed on at least 1 LE speedmaster... granted it was only a run of 3 in gold. It also seems to be on some new Speedy Pro's with the updated caseback and I think on the ST2.

 

[

It is on the new Seamaster range as well. I think this is a Naiad lock on a new Seamster plus a picture of my 300 which is a screw in and slightly off centre (but it is tight and rather that than letting the water in). Another reason I love the re-issue is the steel back. I am a fan of Sapphire window case backs but it is nice to have an old school one again like the classic speedy.

 

Nope - regular screw in case back.

 

Since its marked "Waterproof" does that mean Omega is always on the hook for water damage? lol I look at these Seamasters and I really wish the new SM300 had Seamaster 300 across the bottom instead of "Master Co-Axial Chronometer". I think they really missed the mark on that.

 

Regarding the Naiad Crowns, I believe that it had been said they were not suspect at shallow depths. In fact, the reason why they were seen as inferior to the screw down crown was because the gasket would allow water ingress once it expired — meanwhile, a screw-down crown is also far less prone to user manipulation, intentional or unintentional, when underwater.

 

Is it only the ceramics which have the new Naiad system? I have seen it on the deep black. The styling on the new diver 300 threw me off / looked similar. I just lifted this from monochrome-watches.com, but I think this is a ceramic version of the new 300? - looks like some Seamasters are Naiad. The whole Seamaster nomenclature and history gets confusing at times....

 

I saw this in another forum a while back (not as wonderful as this forum of course) and it seemed to cross reference with the design... but correlation is not causation as they say.....External pressure was meant to compress the gaskets and provide a watertight seal that increased with depth. Regardless of whether that bit actually worked or not, the design left the watch poorly sealed when there was no external pressure

 

This isn't something I've looked into in any great depth, but every case that I know of that has used the Naiad case back system on it, was marked as such. I think you would want to warn people that the case back isn't going to unscrew like a regular case back would, but it more of a bayonet style fitting...

 

That caseback isn't aligned perfectly, it's off to the left just a bit. Which matches my example as well - they don't actually line up per Omega (Fratello suggested the caseback on the Speedy Tuesday #1 would too). I think Fratello got caught up in the separate announcement of the Naiad Lock system which came about at the same time the Trilogy were introduced.

 

I like the back...……...but still prefer the front :0)

 

I would love a Railmaster reissue as an everyday watch. But I just can't bring myself to buy one, as the prices seem to be dropping.

 

A bit like buying shares you cant time the market 100% and I don't think you will be catching a falling knife if you plan to keep it long term. I think you are just losing time you could spend with an item you really want and its true value for you will be the history you build with it. Plus you should be able to knock anyone down enough to help compensate for further market drops (I cut a good deal for my Seamaster with a part-ex). For sure don't pay retail. With inflation long term you should not loose on a watch like this (less maintenance costs).. but cars and houses need upkeep as well so that comes with the territory. Happy hunting.

 

This was nothing special, late sixties catalogue sale watch, but it kept its value long term...…..

 

Hate to break the flow of the conversation but has anyone noticed a difference between the red presentation boxes for the Seamaster vs. Railmaster?

I'm probably a bit too much of a watch perfectionist, but I recently obtained a Railmaster and noticed the box reference number was 94100552 (on the shipping box). This corresponded to gold lettering on the bottom right of the white box (552). It seems to also be the same number on my Seamaster...

However, I noticed another Railmaster online had a box with reference number 94100551. Any ideas if I received the wrong box for the Railmaster?