Looking through my watch collection, I noticed that both these watches shared a similar design - and they both appeal to my tastes. However, the similarities don't end there, so I thought they might be an interesting pair to compare.

They were both sold in Japan in the first decade of this century, with the Omega dating to 2003 and the Seiko dating to 2007. I was unable to find original retail prices in Japanese Yen, but managed to find equivalent retail prices in US dollars - the Omega retailed at US$3,760 and the Seiko at US$3,795. Though unlikely, if the Omega sat in a display case for a while it's not impossible they were on display at the same time. I imagine somebody walking in to Ginza Wako with a half a million Japanese Yen budget in the 2000's would have had a lot to think about between these two.

For almost the same price, the Omega offers a more substantial band, with the steel brickwork bracelet being extremely comfortable and flexing organically on the wrist, without any hair pulling. The Seiko was originally offered on a (still very nice, I'm sure) genuine crocodile leather band with a simple tang buckle.

The Omega has more svelte case, 10 mm high and 38 mm diameter, with the rather more bulky Seiko measuring 41mm wide and 15 mm tall. Both cases are fully polished 316 steel, and 100 metres of water resistance. The Omega has a very slightly domed sapphire crystal with internal AR coating and solid case back. The Seiko offers a flat sapphire crystal on the front and back, with internal AR coating on the dial side.

In typical Japanese fashion, the Seiko packs in more complications for the money, housing a date, power reserve meter, and true GMT with independent hour hand. Both watches feature silver hands with a heat blued seconds hands, with an additional blue GMT hand and silver power reserve hand on the Seiko. Examined under 30x magnification (3 times stronger than an ordinary jeweller's loupe), the Seiko's sword hands are faceted and sharply beveled on all edges, and quite thick. The Omega's lance shaped hands are simpler, with straight cut edges lacking any bevel, except for the top of the tip on the hour and minute hands, which comes to a needle sharp point. The Omega's hands feature a small amount of green lume, with the Seiko's hands reliant on their perfectly mirror polished surfaces to catch any ambient light, not exactly as practical in pitch darkness, but otherwise usable even in low light.

Moving to the dial, examined under magnification, both display a similar level of quality. The Omega's dial is made from silver alloy, white in colour, and with an all-over frosted finish and pie pan shape giving it a faceted look when the light catches it just right. The logo and dial text has been printed, with sharp detail evident under magnification. The hour markers are a faceted 'coffin' shape, save for the quadrants which are Roman numerals. All facets on the markers are perfectly polished and all edges are neat and sharp. The Seiko's dial is silvered brass, with an applied Seiko logo and crisply printed 'Spring Drive'. The dial has a fine vertical brushed texture in the centre. The outer half of the dial consists of fine concentric circles with applied hour markers, again with Roman numerals for the quarters. The markers are mirror polished and edges razor sharp under magnification; they catch the light very well.

Under the dial is where the comparison gets very interesting - the Omega has a Cal. 2403A, basically a well finished ETA 2892 modified with the Daniels Co-Axial escapement. This has been covered in depth elsewhere and if you've read this far perhaps you know a bit about it, but to summarize, English horologist George Daniels devised it in the 1970's as a way for mechanical watches to compete with the quartz watch. In theory, the low friction design greatly reduces wear, increases accuracy, and extends service intervals. The Omega Co-Axial was first commercially released in 1999.

The Seiko has a Spring Drive Cal. 5R66A, basically a well finished Seiko mechanical movement modified with a quartz controlled feedback loop circuit called the Tri-Synchro Regulator. This has been covered in depth elsewhere and if you've read this far perhaps you know a bit about it, but to summarize, Japanese horologist Yoshikazu Akahane devised it in the 1970's as a way for mechanical watches to compete with the quartz watch. In theory, the low friction design greatly reduces wear, increases accuracy, and extends service intervals. The Seiko Spring Drive was first commercially released in 1999.

Now that we've covered their surprisingly similar history and technical philosophy, a closer look at their movement finishes. The Omega's Cal. 2403 movement is hidden behind a steel case back, but for the watchmaker's eyes it is decorated with Geneva stripes on the rotor and top plates, with perlage on the base plates. Notably, there is a 'ghost' position when pulling the crown out where a date change would usually be found.

The Seiko's Cal. 5R66A movement has radial brushing on the rotor, and the top plate decorated with cotes circulaires, a concentric variant of 'Tokyo stripes'. My research indicates that the master watchmaker Philippe Dufour visited the Seiko craftspeople who assemble the Spring Drives and gave them instruction on watch finishing using Japanese gentian wood in place of the boxwood which is traditional in Switzerland. The top plates feature wide bevels which are mirror polished, although possibly cut by machine. The base plates feature a neat brushed finish similar to entry level Seiko 5.

Over all, these watches share a similar-yet-individual aesthetic, and both have something totally unique to offer, which is why they both share pride of place in my collection. Thank you for reading!