Omega Seamaster Diver

N njlam

I am coming around on this watch (especially the new one with no date), however what keeps me from buying one is the "skeletonized" hands.

Why do the hands look this way? The look like the are non-authorized replacements installed by someone who has never visited Switzerland.

My original introduction to this watch was the 2254.5 "Peter Blake" with the sword hands.

Can someone tell be about the history of this watch and how these ugly hands found their way onto what otherwise very nice design language?

ErichPryde

My recommendation is to go see it in person. The skeletonized hands are also my major complaint about the seamaster professional, but after seeing the no date in person and trying it on a couple of times, the way they reflect light in concert with the dial and crystal actually works really, really well. Not only do I not care that this model has skeletonized hands, I wouldn't want it designed any other way.

As far as the history of them- I think it's literally just about design language. Omega's seamaster before 1993's pro shared the mercedes style hands that Rolex is so well known for. Sure, many other brands had these hands, but they're mostly associated with Rolex. Why did Omega go with skeletonized hands instead of sword hands? No idea. sword hands are way more functional. Maybe because it allows the wave dial to be seen underneath?

Whatever the case, I think the design language was pretty clearly cemented when the watch got picked for Goldeneye. It's possible if that hadn't happened Omega would have changed the design.

N njlam

Any chance these might happen soon (W&W 2025)?

I would hate to buy the current version if a slightly smaller model with sword hands came out. I love the no date symmetry.

bsowers34

I love the skeleton hands. Mine is the ubiquitous blue dial blue bezel and I love it.