Omega Seamaster 300, Ref. 233.30.41.21.01.001

[Varasc]

Dear All,
Good evening. I'd like to introduce my latest and long-awaited entry, an Omega Seamaster 300 ref. 233.30.41.21.01.001, purchased in a very special place at the end of January.
This is the third Omega of my little collection, started with a Seamaster Cosmic purchased on the Christmas Day of 1967 by my grandfather in Milano. Some years ago I received that cherished heirloom, which I like to see as some kind of unspoken Omega connection with my family. With persons I now deeply miss.
With one of my very first wages I then purchased a beautiful Omega Speedmaster Professional, cal. 1861, ref. 38705000. A real thing of beauty, for a passionate reader of space exploration history. And then, back in 2015, I fell in love again - this time with a magnificent, sharp-looking Seamaster.

Reference 233.30.41.21.01.001, a gift I maybe waited too long before to pull the trigger, but here we are now.
Specs and some awesome pics are available here:

https://www.omegawatches.com/it-it/...ter-co-axial-chronometer-41-mm-23330412101001

Thanks for reading my little story and, if possible, a question.
Should you have any further info or in-detail review of this Seamaster or of its 8400 calibre, could you please share them here?
I always love to know more. Thank you!
Marco

 

[munichblue]

It is a very beautiful watch. Actually I like it more than it successor for some reasons.

 

[Varasc]

munichblue

It is a very beautiful watch. Actually I like it more than it successor for some reasons.

Thank you indeed. I agree with you, I studied the new (current) corresponding reference and I could see it at the Omega Boutique. Despite having been offered with a really good discount, I absolutely wanted the previous "version". And surprise, this piece turned out to be the very last available in Switzerland, coming straight from Bienne. I think I've been lucky. 😀

 

[imranbecks]

Congratulations! Definitely better looking than the current Master Chronometer ones. Just something about the liquidmetal ceramic bezel that just makes it look that much better.

 

[Varasc]

imranbecks

Congratulations! Definitely better looking than the current Master Chronometer ones. Just something about the liquidmetal ceramic bezel that just makes it look that much better.

I agree. It's just a thing of beauty. I love this watch. 😀

 

[ErichPryde]

Congratulations! I also just ordered a 233.30, and it will be my first Omega. After quite a bit of research it was specifically my pick.

Varasc

Dear All,
Good evening. I'd like to introduce my latest and long-awaited entry, an Omega Seamaster 300 ref. 233.30.41.21.01.001, purchased in a very special place at the end of January.
This is the third Omega of my little collection, started with a Seamaster Cosmic purchased on the Christmas Day of 1967 by my grandfather in Milano. Some years ago I received that cherished heirloom, which I like to see as some kind of unspoken Omega connection with my family. With persons I now deeply miss.
With one of my very first wages I then purchased a beautiful Omega Speedmaster Professional, cal. 1861, ref. 38705000. A real thing of beauty, for a passionate reader of space exploration history. And then, back in 2015, I fell in love again - this time with a magnificent, sharp-looking Seamaster.

Reference 233.30.41.21.01.001, a gift I maybe waited too long before to pull the trigger, but here we are now.
Specs and some awesome pics are available here:

https://www.omegawatches.com/it-it/...ter-co-axial-chronometer-41-mm-23330412101001

Thanks for reading my little story and, if possible, a question.
Should you have any further info or in-detail review of this Seamaster or of its 8400 calibre, could you please share them here?
I always love to know more. Thank you!
Marco

 

[ErichPryde]

munichblue

It is a very beautiful watch. Actually I like it more than it successor for some reasons.

I as well. For me, the points of polarity are:
1)The watch crystal on the 234 is significantly more domed. I realize this is coming back into vogue, but I would be concerned that with consistent wearing, this exposes more of the crystal to the risk of being cracked/shattered (vs just being scratched). This may or may not be a legit concern, but I'm a watch wearer.
2)The bezel has changed to anodized aluminum. I prefer the older ceramic bezel.
3) The lume is INCREDIBLY busy. I like bright lume just fine, but Lume has a job- to show you the time in low light when your eyes are adjusted ti that light. literally everything being lumed is too busy. On a diver, I need the pip and the minute hand, not all the **** numbers.
4)The lume bezel will probably be susceptible to scratching.
5)The lollipop seconds hand looks "heavy."

Most of these are totally subjective- and I DO think that the current generation of the SM300 is beautiful and I love that the numerals are sandwiched. I also like the thinner profile. Just for me personally- it's the watch I'd be happier with for the next decade.

 

[Varasc]

ErichPryde

I as well. For me, the points of polarity are:
1)The watch crystal on the 234 is significantly more domed. I realize this is coming back into vogue, but I would be concerned that with consistent wearing, this exposes more of the crystal to the risk of being cracked/shattered (vs just being scratched). This may or may not be a legit concern, but I'm a watch wearer.
2)The bezel has changed to anodized aluminum. I prefer the older ceramic bezel.
3) The lume is INCREDIBLY busy. I like bright lume just fine, but Lume has a job- to show you the time in low light when your eyes are adjusted ti that light. literally everything being lumed is too busy. On a diver, I need the pip and the minute hand, not all the **** numbers.
4)The lume bezel will probably be susceptible to scratching.
5)The lollipop seconds hand looks "heavy."

Most of these are totally subjective- and I DO think that the current generation of the SM300 is beautiful and I love that the numerals are sandwiched. I also like the thinner profile. Just for me personally- it's the watch I'd be happier with for the next decade.

You had me at "but I'm a watch wearer".
Everything well said. Thanks for sharing.

I would really like to know more about this watch and its calibre. Do you have any insight or additional info?

 

[ErichPryde]

Varasc

You had me at "but I'm a watch wearer".
Everything well said. Thanks for sharing.

I would really like to know more about this watch and its calibre. Do you have any insight or additional info?

I'm probably the wrong person to ask- my love of Omega watches runs back to a lifelong deep-seated love of NASA, but only recently did I gather more than passing information on the technicals.
That said- what I know about the 233.30 is that the 8400 caliber movement is the dateless version of the 8500, and the first METAs certified Master Chronometer from Omega used the 8900 movement, which was based upon the 8500.

In fact, according to @Archer and a few others in this thread, the differences between the 8500 and 8900 are essentially cosmetic.


(https://omegaforums.net/threads/cal-8900-is-it-same-movement-than-latest-cal-8500.54056/)


I THINK the current MC movements are based upon the 8500/8900 as well- but someone please correct me if I'm wrong, on this.

SO essentially- it's Master chronometer caliber, just without the METAs certificate. It should be a very accurate watch, within its service window.

 

[OmegaBHR]

groovy baby, Yeah!

 

[ErichPryde]

O OmegaBHR

groovy baby, Yeah!

Beaut.

 

[Varasc]

O OmegaBHR

groovy baby, Yeah!

Awww...
Stunning blue!

 

[munichblue]

 

[dstfno]

ErichPryde

SO essentially- it's Master chronometer caliber, just without the METAs certificate. It should be a very accurate watch, within its service window.

I'm don't know about the technicalities and if my findings mean anything, but I've had two 8400 and two 8500 movements and none was as accurate as my METAS certified 8800.

 

[ErichPryde]

dstfno

I'm don't know about the technicalities and if my findings mean anything, but I've had two 8400 and two 8500 movements and none was as accurate as my METAS certified 8800.

Definitely could be! They aren't METAs certified after all.

dstfno

I'm don't know about the technicalities and if my findings mean anything, but I've had two 8400 and two 8500 movements and none was as accurate as my METAS certified 8800.

That definitely could be, I don't have any first-hand experience with the 8900 at all, and such limited experience with the 8400 it's not worth mentioning. What I know about the movement is 100% gathered from Posts I read here and in a couple of other places, and I would say that the sample sizes in general are probably not that large in either direction (RE: accuracy).

 

[Donn Chambers]

My old “Master Co-Axial” Seamaster 300 was every bit as accurate as my new Master Chronometer 300. See this tongue-in-cheek post I made about it a few months after buying:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/sho...ew-seamaster-300-mc-is-10-seconds-fast.97594/

Based on my two-point sample (highly significant, obviously), Omega got the accuracy where they wanted it with the “Master Co-Axial” but then decided on a different name for marketing.

 

[ErichPryde]

Donn Chambers

My old “Master Co-Axial” Seamaster 300 was every bit as accurate as my new Master Chronometer 300. See this tongue-in-cheek post I made about it a few months after buying:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/sho...ew-seamaster-300-mc-is-10-seconds-fast.97594/

Based on my two-point sample (highly significant, obviously), Omega got the accuracy where they wanted it with the “Master Co-Axial” but then decided on a different name for marketing.

Yes, highly significant sample 😁 . But honestly, individuals collecting their own data with only a handful of watches there is some degree of "value" in non-significant samples. Have to wonder how many people out there own METAS/COSC certified watches and just never check them. Does that cast doubt on the incredibly small number of people who actually check this sort of thing? Or does it increase the value of the people who actually check, because they are also the ones who happen to care?

Anyway... the philosophy aside it's good to see someone say this- I value accuracy and it makes me happier with my purchase. 😀

(edited)

Also, you traded or sold your prior gen for this current one? What is it that you like better about the current generation? Is there anything you like better about the prior generation? They're both beautiful watches, I l chose the 8400 but it was close.

Edited: Feb 14, 2023

 

[Donn Chambers]

ErichPryde

Also, you traded or sold your prior gen for this current one? What is it that you like better about the current generation? Is there anything you like better about the prior generation? They're both beautiful watches, I l chose the 8400 but it was close.

A few reasons:

1) Hated the bracelet on the old one. Made the watch wear big on my wrist, not enough taper, and it was thick. The bracelet on the new one is perfect, IMO. The clasp is also shorter, so it fits the underside of my wrist better. It has enough on-the-fly adjustment to size up when my wrist swells, but not more than I need, like the old clasp.

2) While the older ceramic bezel with Liquid Metal inserts is beautiful, I prefer the matte finish of the aluminum on the new one. I can also see the painted markings better in all lighting, plus, I dig the lumed bezel.

3) Prefer the simpler dial text: “Omega” on top, and “Seamaster 300” on the bottom. I’ve never been a fan of extra bragging/advertisement on a dial — and I’m looking at you, Rolex.

4) it’s actually a tad thinner, even with the domed crystal.

Ultimately, it just feels better on my wrist and it seems less flashy to me, which suits my style.

 

[ErichPryde]

Interesting. I liked the matte finish on the bezel on the new one, but felt like the lumed bezel was too busy. I much prefer the quieter lume of the MCC vs the MC. Ironically I felt that the somewhat more glossy dial was more flashy than the sandblast. accounting for the bezel, it was a wash for me- both are fairly understated.

Strongly agree with #3 regarding bragging on the dial, but I felt this was fairly understated lettering compared to some examples I've seen (Tudor, Rolex). For me this was a wash as well, The larger "Seamaster 300" font is nice, but I didn't like it more or less than the "Master Co-axial Chronometer" lettering- which- considering it's modern lettering, also pulls the watch out of 1957 and puts it in the 2010s, vs the newer gen, which puts it more clearly in vintage territory. One is "vintage modern," the other is "vintage retro," almost. This was a wash- but the sandwiched numbers on the newer model are spectacular.

Re 4: Strong agree on it being thinner being a plus. I was/am somewhat concerned about the higher domed crystal shattering due to impact. I'm curious as to why the watch industry moved away from the high domed style- if it was due to impacts, Obviously hesalite would scratch- under the same conditions will sapphire shatter? This could be, easily, an invalid concern though of mine.

Bottom line: both totally beautiful. It was *honestly* the lume that drove me away from the more modern one foremost. I like lume, but for me it should serve the purpose of informing me of the time in dark conditions- I don't need the additional data. I understand, however, that there's a modern push for more and more lume and I respect that Panerai's lumed numbers look fantastic.

Anyway, congratulations on your watch! I got pretty hung up on some of the same details, but went a different direction. Totally can relate about the bracelet, the newer bracelet is FAR superior.

Donn Chambers

A few reasons:

1) Hated the bracelet on the old one. Made the watch wear big on my wrist, not enough taper, and it was thick. The bracelet on the new one is perfect, IMO. The clasp is also shorter, so it fits the underside of my wrist better. It has enough on-the-fly adjustment to size up when my wrist swells, but not more than I need, like the old clasp.

2) While the older ceramic bezel with Liquid Metal inserts is beautiful, I prefer the matte finish of the aluminum on the new one. I can also see the painted markings better in all lighting, plus, I dig the lumed bezel.

3) Prefer the simpler dial text: “Omega” on top, and “Seamaster 300” on the bottom. I’ve never been a fan of extra bragging/advertisement on a dial — and I’m looking at you, Rolex.

4) it’s actually a tad thinner, even with the domed crystal.

Ultimately, it just feels better on my wrist and it seems less flashy to me, which suits my style.

 

[ErichPryde]

Regarding the accuracy, my 8400 is currently running at +2 to +2.2sec/day on average. Not bad for a watch that is 7 years old and has never been serviced...