Possible new 300m spotted on Daniel Craig

A Al_Snoopy

I am sure they can work it out and get it to 12mm at least. Surely it won't be a huge task for one of the lead innovators in watchmaking.

They just want to stick to thicker watches. Perhaps they think that if they reduce the size of the SMP it will be too similar to the submariner? Probably research done by the same people who thought that the change of shape of the He escape valve to a toothpaste cup will be a big hit....

ErichPryde

Everyone, that is, on this forum. I've almost never see anyone on Reddit's Omega sub complain about the 42 mm size of the Seamaster Pro.

josiahg52

If they could make it smaller, they would've done it a there, a full 4mm+ smaller in diameter. The newest Seamasters is 1mm or a little more thicker. It's not like Omega said, "Ah yes, let's make this one sooooooo thick! "

Jakeys

I don't think they literally set out to make it thick, but I do think it isn't a priority for them, and I think it should be for the reasons previously stated. If they wanted to, they could get the sizing down. Every generation so far has added thickness. At some point that trend has to stop or we'll be wearing Omegvictas.

josiahg52

But everyone wants the premium movements, and the premium material. The current movement is 1mm thicker than from the 2000s, and so is the watch. I don't really get the "every generation has added thickness" either. I mean, if we go back to the 60s, through the quartz era, sure, but 20 years, several generations, and 1mm? Hardly thicker and thicker and thicker. I wonder of all relative dimensions were kept the same, would the current SMP be even thicker. We could never know without case drawings (unlikely) or someone dong like a 3D scan, I suppose. I think Omega has shown restraint with the SMP. Look at the PO for a large watch.

ErichPryde

Here's what I know:

Perfect diameter, lug-to-lug, and good thickness for a "vintage" inspired watch.

bsowers34

Omega product sheet says yes it does.

Jakeys

I'm only talking about the automatic SMP divers. The 2531.80 was 11.8 mm thick, the current gen is 13.6 mm thick, or 13.8 mm if you add the domed crystal which tbh I'm really not concerned about. Each generation in between slightly added thickness. 0.8 to go to the co-axial 2500, another 0.4 to go to ceramics, and another 0.6 to go to the in-house 8800.

Also, since you mentioned the PO is a large watch. The first gen co-axial 42 mm Planet Ocean was 14.5 mm thick. The current gen SMP is closer to a Planet Ocean than a first or second gen SMP, or a current gen Submariner. The Sub thickness isn't well documented but Time & Tide place the current gen at 12.5 mm. I'm unsure if that includes the date cyclops, I found a source for the no date version that put it at 12.4 mm.

Whether or not any of us individually care about the thickness, objectively the watch is thicker than it used to be and thicker than its competitors by a noticeable margin. The complaints are warranted, I think.

bsowers34

I myself like the size and weight of my Diver 300. The NTTD feels like a swatch after wearing that. I have small wrist, but it doesn't seem too large or thick for me, and if I want something smaller, I'll wear a speedy.

josiahg52

I don't care about the thickness, but that's not my point. The numbers and fractions of a millimeters being discussed is a little ridiculous. I think it's all a consequence of people wanting a premium watch that doesn't use nasty aluminum and boring, run of the mill, but shiny ETA movements.

Cal. 1120 3.6mm
Cal. 2500 4.1mm
Cal. 8800 4.6mm

I've no specific information on the newest Seamaster's dial or bezel insert, but the dial seems clearly thicker around the date window anyway and the bezel appears chunkier. I don't think Omega is in love with making thick watches. It IS a consequence of their choices, however, largely driven by customer expectation, desire, want, etc. I don't think the complaints heaped upon Omega are entirely warranted at all.

That's why I say go back to aluminum inserts and brass dials. Put a solid case back on it because it'd probably be thinner then a display back. It's a start for those wanting a thinner watch, but admittedly, it'll never be the thinnest Seamaster, for sure. Start talking like that and people start complaining about how Omega is losing ground to Rolex, headed down market, it's so cheap feeling and looking, etc.

Although I don't find the newest Seamaster thick, I do really like how the 2254.50 feels on the wrist and I do support moving in that direction instead of trying to stuff a watch full of premium materials and the biggest, best movement.

Jakeys

I know it sounds ridiculous to be talking about a millimetre or two but to put it in perspective, we're talking about a 10-20% difference. It's enough you notice for sure, just look at the debates about similar margins on diameters. A 36 mm watch is very different from a 38-39. Also, isn't debating the minutiae of Omegas basically what this site is for? 😁

In terms of reducing material quality to achieve thinness, I don't think that's the right solution, nor is it necessary. I actually like aluminium bezels too but the market clearly wants ceramics, and in terms of performance it's a superior material. Omega have committed to moving up market, they can't cut corners long term or they'll be murdered for it.

Again, to harp on the Sub since it's the yardstick and closest competitor, it's quite a bit thinner than the SMP, yet has essentially the same materials, build quality and water resistance. I looked up the Rolex movement height and I found multiple sites all claiming 6mm. I find that very surprising but if it's true, and your 8800 value is accurate as well, that means Rolex can package a 6 mm movement in a mid 12 mm case, clearly Omega should be able to achieve the same. I agree that with the addition of ceramics and a half mil thicker movement, the era of sleek 11 mm divers is gone for good.

Jakeys

I know it sounds ridiculous to be talking about a millimetre or two but to put it in perspective, we're talking about a 10-20% difference. It's enough you notice for sure, just look at the debates about similar margins on diameters. A 36 mm watch is very different from a 38-39. Also, isn't debating the minutiae of Omegas basically what this site is for? 😁

In terms of reducing material quality to achieve thinness, I don't think that's the right solution, nor is it necessary. I actually like aluminium bezels too but the market clearly wants ceramics, and in terms of performance it's a superior material. Omega have committed to moving up market, they can't cut corners long term or they'll be murdered for it.

Again, to harp on the Sub since it's the yardstick and closest competitor, it's quite a bit thinner than the SMP, yet has essentially the same materials, build quality and water resistance. I looked up the Rolex movement height and I found multiple sites all claiming 6mm. I find that very surprising but if it's true, and your 8800 value is accurate as well, that means Rolex can package a 6 mm movement in a mid 12 mm case, clearly Omega should be able to achieve the same. I agree that with the addition of ceramics and a half mil thicker movement, the era of sleek 11 mm divers is gone for good.

josiahg52

His sleeves are pulled up so you can see the watch.

Jakeys

It is a sport watch first but it used to look sleek and elegant too. It's a bit of a trope but you only need to look back at how well Brosnan and (for one movie) Craig pulled it off in a tux. It wore easily under the cuff, even if the dial was sporty. I just think it used to do both well.