The Seamaster 300 Heritage Question

reddotscope · 2025-12-30T11:25:34-0600

Hello everyone, I currently have the 2nd gen Seamaster heritage in blue, but after long consideration, I am seriously thinking of replacing it with the 1st gen titanium version(233.90.41.21.03.001).

The reasons being:
- The liquidmetal-ceramic bezel I find much more attractive and more unique to Omega

- I don’t care about the vintage lume, but on the 2nd gen, the beige is very overpowering

- Love for Titanium

- The sandwich dial is nice on the markers, but the ‘12 3 6 9’ looks a bit cartoonish, 1st gen looks more purposeful

- I can’t quite put my finger on it, but the case and the look of the 2nd gen is softer looking and more ‘bubbly’, which is fine, but I don’t think it matches the look of its bracelet, which is a bit more purposeful/agressive. On the 1st gen, the case, the shape and the bracelet match perfectly in vibes, all bulky/masculine.

Anyone had this dilemma before? Looking for insights and pictures of the Ti Heritage from owners. Thank you!

Jan Dietrich · 2025-12-30T12:09:11-0600

I can understand!
I think its also a better decition as a collector to get the first gen. Liquidmetalbezels are rarer. The Production has stopped. And i also find the dial more serious and beautiful. The only thing i miss with my seamaster 300MC First Gen steel is the braclet. I find the endpieces and the tapering more beatiful on the second gen. Sorry for my Bad english. I Hope you understand.

reddotscope · 2025-12-30T13:15:31-0600

Jan Dietrich
I can understand!
I think its also a better decition as a collector to get the first gen. Liquidmetalbezels are rarer. The Production has stopped. And i also find the dial more serious and beautiful. The only thing i miss with my seamaster 300MC First Gen steel is the braclet. I find the endpieces and the tapering more beatiful on the second gen. Sorry for my Bad english. I Hope you understand.

Thank you, I understand you perfectly.

Bracelet is indeed very nice on the 2nd gen and would be beautiful if it fit the 1st.

Liquidmetal is very attractive and unique, I don’t know why Omega silently moved away from it

Lode_Runner · 2025-12-30T15:06:21-0600

I've owned both of these models, and sold both of them. But after selling my second generation model, I briefly considered reacquiring the first generation model, here are the things that pushed me away from that:

1) Bracelet. The bracelet on the first generation titanium model does not fit smaller wrists nearly as well as the second generation bracelet. This is mostly because the first generation bracelet uses a male center link at the end links, which significantly increases the effective lug-to-lug distance. As a result, the first gen model has an effective lug-to-lug of around 52mm, as compared to 48mm for the second gen model. The second gen bracelet also has a very nice tapering from 21mm down to 16mm, that makes it wear better. If I were ever to reacquire a first generation model, I'd probably wear it on rubber or a leather strap.

2) Thickness. The first gen model is thicker; the actual difference in the published specs is about 1.2mm, but in the metal the second gen model feels considerably thinner than the first gen. This is in part because the actual case thickness is smaller in the newer model, and its overall thickness includes a highly domed sapphire crystal. With the first generation, on the other hand, the thickness basically extends to the surface of the rotating bezel with a (mostly) flat crystal, and the ceramic bezel is partially to blame for that. The result is that the second generation feels a lot "flatter" on the wrist than the first gen.

There are a lot of other visual differences that are a matter of taste. I generally found the blue on the first generation dial and bezel to feel a bit washed out and dull. The dial-to-bezel ratio is also different; the second generation has a slightly larger dial and a thinner bezel, while the first generation has a silver ring on the bezel reminiscent of the 1957 Seamaster. But I preferred the more restrained use of faux patina lume on the first generation model. On the second generation model, I think Omega went overboard and the faux-tina lume was ultimately the reason I got rid of it.

Davidt · 2025-12-30T15:11:27-0600

Pure on aesthetics the first gen is far superior in my eyes. I agree the second gen looks almost cartoonish whereas the first looks like a thoughtful and balanced modern interpretation of the original.

reddotscope · 2025-12-30T15:17:51-0600

Lode_Runner
I've owned both of these models, and sold both of them. But after selling my second generation model, I briefly considered reacquiring the first generation model, here are the things that pushed me away from that:

1) Bracelet. The bracelet on the first generation titanium model does not fit smaller wrists nearly as well as the second generation bracelet. This is mostly because the first generation bracelet uses a male center link at the end links, which significantly increases the effective lug-to-lug distance. As a result, the first gen model has an effective lug-to-lug of around 52mm, as compared to 48mm for the second gen model. The second gen bracelet also has a very nice tapering from 21mm down to 16mm, that makes it wear better. If I were ever to reacquire a first generation model, I'd probably wear it on rubber or a leather strap.

2) Thickness. The first gen model is thicker; the actual difference in the published specs is about 1.2mm, but in the metal the second gen model feels considerably thinner than the first gen. This is in part because the actual case thickness is smaller in the newer model, and its overall thickness includes a highly domed sapphire crystal. With the first generation, on the other hand, the thickness basically extends to the surface of the rotating bezel with a (mostly) flat crystal, and the ceramic bezel is partially to blame for that. The result is that the second generation feels a lot "flatter" on the wrist than the first gen.

There are a lot of other visual differences that are a matter of taste. I generally found the blue on the first generation dial and bezel to feel a bit washed out and dull. The dial-to-bezel ratio is also different; the second generation has a slightly larger dial and a thinner bezel, while the first generation has a silver ring on the bezel reminiscent of the 1957 Seamaster. But I preferred the more restrained use of faux patina lume on the first generation model. On the second generation model, I think Omega went overboard and the faux-tina lume was ultimately the reason I got rid of it.

Thank you for the detailed response, like you said, the reason I want to get rid of the 2nd gen is the heavy use of faux patina, beige started to become overwhelming.

Perhaps 2nd gen proportions with the materials and faux lume usage of the 1st one would be the more perfect watch.

reddotscope · 2025-12-30T15:19:01-0600

Davidt
Pure on aesthetics the first gen is far superior in my eyes. I agree the second gen looks almost cartoonish whereas the first looks like a thoughtful and balanced modern interpretation of the original.

Yep, aesthetically the 1st one is much more timeless, but the 2nd has much better proportions

ErichPryde · 2025-12-30T19:49:50-0600

Lode_Runner
This is in part because the actual case thickness is smaller in the newer model, and its overall thickness includes a highly domed sapphire crystal

Exactly this. I've owned both the first (in black) and second gen (in summer blue) of this watch- the entire case of the first gen is quite thick and it rides high. It's almost all case and bezel. While I do prefer the first gen dial in black, the second gen wears much more comfortably. But if you @reddotscope don't mind a thick watch, this may not be as much of a concern for you.

Lode_Runner
and the ceramic bezel is partially to blame for that.

The design of the first gen bezel is partially to blame, but both the second generation summer blue and bronze-gold have ceramic bezels: The summer blue bezel is ceramic with inset grand feu enamel markers; and the bronze-gold uses some form of Superluminova since it is a lumed bezel.

Omega states that the ceramic bezel of the second generation is thinner than prior models. I know that when Omega first moved to ceramic it required a thicker insert, and that there was quite a bit of work to get that insert size down.

Regarding the liquidmetal aspect- not sure exactly why Omega is using it less. In some models they are playing with lumed bezels, and others (like the new PO) enamels and blended ceramics. May in fact be, that since production of a stable, thinner ceramic bezel is now possible, needing to fill deeper inset numbers is not as important. But that is speculation on my part. It could just boil down to business cost.

I understand the desire for a ceramic bezel, it has a completely different look than the anodized aluminum. I'd recommend trying on the 1st Gen. And if you don't mind some amount of fauxtina color other than white, you could consider the summer blue heritage as well.

The Seamaster 300 Heritage Question

reddotscope

Jan Dietrich

reddotscope

Lode_Runner

Davidt

reddotscope

reddotscope

ErichPryde

Similar threads

Seamaster 300 heritage - bezel insert damage

New Seamaster 300 Heritage: Bezel Misaligned?

Would you buy a Seamaster 300 Heritage with a hesalite crystal?

Looking for advice on verifying steel bracelet for Seamaster 300 heritage

Omega Seamaster 300 Heritage Liquidmetal - 233.30.41.21.01.001 ( excellent )

Omega Seamaster 300 Heritage - Black - 234.30.41.21.01.001 ( excellent )