Community Stories

Please take 1 minute to sign a Petition to remake the 2254

JCB
Posts
1
Likes
3
Hi all. I created this petition to have Omega remake the 2254. I’m thinking of we could get around 5k signatures that might make a strong case.

Please take a minute to sign.

Thanks in advance.

https://chng.it/CqZHstsSGG
 
Walrus
Posts
10,751
Likes
52,789
I’m a rebel if I sign this does it count as a protest. People usually ask me what I’m protesting I ask them what they got. Im a rebel without a clue.
 
cristos71
Posts
7,899
Likes
35,849
JCB JCB
Hi all. I created this petition to have Omega remake the 2254. I’m thinking of we could get around 5k signatures that might make a strong case.

Please take a minute to sign.

Thanks in advance.

https://chng.it/CqZHstsSGG
Why don't you just buy a good one on the second hand market?
 
OneTwo
Posts
939
Likes
3,879
coffee reverbtime
That's quite a unique first post to say the least...
Have to agree that this is one of the most unique first posts I've seen but way to make an entry. I appreciate the want to create some change with the formal petition creation. That said, after reading your petition abstract, I have to agree with @cristos71. An excellent condition 2254.50 could be had for half to two-thirds the cost of a new SMP 300m. Why not just search for a second hand 2254.50 or a 2054.50?

I also ask that question after reading your petition statement as it seems your main gripe with the new SMP 300m's is the case thickness. Part of what made the 2254.50 & 2054.50, same watch just with the Seamaster 5-link bracelet rather than the Speedmaster style bracelet used on the 2254.50, was that the cal. 1120 allowed for the case thickness to be quite slim. The thickness of Omega's new Co-Axial cal. 8806 is part of what adds to the overall thickness of the current SMP 300m. Even the Summer Blue edition with the closed case back and the new no-date examples have an overall thickness of 13.6mm / 13.8 respectively. Yes, the ceramic bezel and S.S. surround is thicker than the Aluminum insert and S.S. bezel on the 2254.50 but I'd wager that isn't really where the increase occurs. It's in the movement thickness and I don't really see omega moving away from their Co-Axial movements either as it is a notable part of their marketing campaign. So even if they released an example of the current SMP 300m with the large lume sword hands and matte small wave dial that are so emblematic of the 2254.50 / 2054.50, I don't see the watch being able to be that much thinner.

Edit: A thread is better photos, here’s my 2254.50 on a NATO style strap.
IMG_2988.webp
Edited:
 
NotJackson
Posts
334
Likes
277
Nice idea, but I think the sticking point here is the thickness of the coaxial movement. I just don’t see Omega making the thinner automatic watch that you’re looking for, at least not if it requires a different movement.
 
coffee
Posts
511
Likes
989
As some said, a modern Co-Axial 2254 will end up thicker.

Also, some classics are better left untouched. To make an analogy; way too many classic movies have been ruined due to remakes.
 
Foo2rama
Posts
18,202
Likes
27,524
JCB JCB
Hi all. I created this petition to have Omega remake the 2254. I’m thinking of we could get around 5k signatures that might make a strong case.

Please take a minute to sign.

Thanks in advance.

https://chng.it/CqZHstsSGG
Interesting avatar based on the petition....
1753040970376.webp
 
G
Posts
10
Likes
9
Now a remake of the 165.024….

Not easily available and even if you’re able to get one, it’s not what I’d consider a daily driver
 
ErichPryde
Posts
3,873
Likes
8,365
OneTwo OneTwo
Even the Summer Blue edition with the closed case back and the new no-date examples have an overall thickness of 13.6mm / 13.8 respectively.

The Steelcase back actually causes the measurement to be reduced but Omega does not list that on their site. Because of the engraving, depending on exactly how you measure the case back you get variations from 13.6 to 13.7mm on the heritage, under omega's listed 13.9 (technically 13.88)

20240827_202639.webp


Also- the 1120 is what, 3.6mm thick? The 8800 is 4.6mm thick.
Edited:
 
Myron
Posts
313
Likes
664
Echoing what's already been said, I wish they'd bring back the 165.024.
 
darkguyver
Posts
145
Likes
118
Walrus Walrus
I’m a rebel if I sign this does it count as a protest. People usually ask me what I’m protesting I ask them what they got. Im a rebel without a clue.
Thanks! That just made my day 😂🤣😂🤣
 
tritto
Posts
369
Likes
555
I say we start a petition to have omega ditch the coaxial movements and return to rebranded eta movements. The 2892-A2 is an excellent movement and I'm really not convinced that the transition to coaxial movements added a great deal (certainly not in terms of serviceability) 😀
That said, as an owner of a nice 2254.50, I reckon the addition of a revised dial and sword hands to the no date aluminium bezel Seamaster would be a winner - diameter and thickness aside.
Definitely short on photos.
IMG_2236.webp
 
502 to right
Posts
1,075
Likes
1,085
You can buy a pre-owned 2254.50 and send it to an Omega Service Center for a service and get the bezel, dial, hands, crowns, and crystal replaced for a bascially new watch--all for less than if Omega made a new co-axial version of the 2254.

As noted above, the model Omega needs to faithfully reproduce is the 165.024. I have no idea why they would not do so. It is a beloved and classic design and there is no real modern (post-2000) equivalent. And it's not like Omega is afraid of producing a model today that looks nearly identical to one from the 60's (the Speedmaster Moonwatch).
 
Evitzee
Posts
7,679
Likes
14,203
Omega will not start making a watch based on a petition, sorry.
 
padders
Posts
10,438
Likes
16,317
Umm the 2254.50 already is the modern 166.024 remake…
 
Faz
Posts
3,833
Likes
22,917
Evitzee Evitzee
Omega will not start making a watch based on a petition, sorry.
How about a tantrum?
 
NotJackson
Posts
334
Likes
277
Faz Faz
How about a tantrum?
Dear Omega,

We, the undersigned, will hold our collective breath until our faces turn blue …
 
502 to right
Posts
1,075
Likes
1,085
padders padders
Umm the 2254.50 already is the modern 166.024 remake…

Sure. With a different dial, bezel insert, hands, and bracelet.
 
7 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...