What’s happening on March 26th then?

savka · Mar 29, 2022

In thinking about comments from @M'Bob and @kelsey and others over the past couple of days, it really strikes me how Omega has managed to attract and cultivate such a broad and diverse (and passionate) fanbase over the years. I'm not so sure the same can be said (anymore) of brands like Rolex; I imagine the reaction from that other forum would've been much different, perhaps more unified, had Rolex announced a similar crossover collaboration (and we'd know that hell had frozen over). That's not necessarily a knock on Rolex -- I'm a proud owner and wearer of several models, both modern and vintage -- but there's something special about the Omega community.

Like everyone else here, I also hold Omega in high esteem. It's probably fair to say that Omega is my favorite watch brand, so on some level I do understand the negative reaction to this latest collaboration. But one reason I have such an affinity for Omega is precisely because they do things that "those other brands" would never do. I appreciate the risks Omega has taken over the years; they've swung -- and often missed. This might be one of those times. But that's what makes this hobby so fun and interesting. Omega has produced countless models, variations, and sub-variations over the years (maybe too many), which is sometimes brought up as a detriment from a business perspective, especially when compared to the strategies of their competitors. However, it's that very creative exploration that has given us all sorts of great and unique watches that speak to a wide range of people -- and it's also one of the reasons they're a technical leader (looking at you, co-axial escapement). Innovation -- not just in movement-making but also marketing, etc. -- requires a bit of fun and experimentation. If anything, I was more disappointed by the new colorful Aqua Terras than the MoonSwatch just because they seemed so clearly derivative...

Speculation over corporate politics aside (e.g., was this a move to save Swatch? Did the Swatch Group force Omega to do this?), I think the MoonSwatch is a clear embodiment of this ethos and one of the reasons I lined up for several hours to buy one. The MoonSwatch is not a great watch -- it's a quartz watch made of fragile plastic that's objectively overpriced at $260 -- but I think it's a symbol of some pretty cool stuff, and that's Omega's willingness to do something different in an industry that can be quite staid and boring. (And, as @cvalue13 has graciously and meticulously outlined in several posts, that's probably a good business move.)

All that to say, thank you to everyone who engaged in productive discussion to share their thoughts and perspectives. I think I get where you're coming from, and I hope this rambling post offers some small insight into where I am. And Happy Speedy Tuesday!

cvalue13 · Mar 29, 2022

M'Bob
Yet…I still don’t like it. So I have to figure out why. And be honest about it. And admit that my response is emotional, and not necessarily rational.

So I can concoct only two reasons, again with the caveat that they may not make sense…

1) I rightly or wrongly hold the brand in high esteem, and I know Rolex, Vacheron and Patek will never do this, so it bugs me. I know, I know: apples to oranges.

2) Maybe I don’t actually want so many new members to the club. I’ve been in many collecting hobbies, and as soon as the masses get a hold of it, and “everyone’s” interested, it gets less fun. Despite the fact that you could make the argument that more interest = more spillover to the real thing = prices going up = greater value to those that already own.

Still don’t like it…

Hey bud, appreciate Your input which I think is less of any critique than it is an extension of the same discussion.

For my part, I’m compelled to clarify: I’ve addressed only why I think Omega has done this and why it’s not, as a corporate matter, stupid-by-definition as a few (effectively) assert.

Why Omega has done it being separate from my personal feelings about it.

I, as with you and your #2 above, have some base instincts to gatekeep the IYKYK-vibe of Omega and the Speedmaster. (Though in all spheres not just watches, I try hard to throttle such gatekeeping instincts as they too often can relate to primal socio-cultural attitudes that on reflection are related to some potentially troubling attitudes.)

So, I’m very happy to have with you moved past the “any company that would attempt this is an idiot,” instead onto the more relevant discussions.

STANDY · Mar 29, 2022

If they released a ST3 next week 2012 watches would sell out in a afternoon.

Funny I feel a Snoopy on a watch is childish crazy, the TinTin is ratatouille’s table cloth but I own a Ultramen ST2 ……go figure

Omega makes watches for everyone and now you have everything from plastic to platinum

But I do remember that in 2010 only one or two collected Speedmasters here and they were $500-$1000 on EBay all day long with about $1500 for a 321

One of the best nights I had was watching Speedy Tuesday 1 unfold after placing my order within 5 minutes ( scoring #1861 ) with money I had saved for a Rolex I couldn’t buy.

pdxleaf · Mar 29, 2022

Swatch should make a bioceramic pocket watch.

Pocket watches could use a little pick me up in interest.

pdxleaf · Mar 29, 2022

M'Bob
This is a very impressive post, and very well-researched. I can’t really counter any of the points, further, the folks at Omega aren’t idiots, so wouldn’t be doing this if it wasn’t going to improve SOMETHING for them: sales, new buyers, more brand recognition, etc.

Yet…I still don’t like it. So I have to figure out why. And be honest about it. And admit that my response is emotional, and not necessarily rational.

So I can concoct only two reasons, again with the caveat that they may not make sense…

.......

Still don’t like it…

Yep.

And no one has accused people of only being interested in the value of their watches if they think this is a good idea because it will bring introduce young people to speedmasters (driving up the value.)

Why? Because that would be insulting and ridiculous.

texasmade · Mar 29, 2022

STANDY
If they released a ST3 next week 2012 watches would sell out in a afternoon.

Afternoon? Try like 2 minutes.

cvalue13 · Mar 29, 2022

M'Bob
1) I rightly or wrongly hold the brand in high esteem, and I know Rolex, Vacheron and Patek will never do this, so it bugs me. I know, I know: apples to oranges.

Wanted to circle back to this separate point now [one point that by coincidence @STANDY touched on while I was typing]

You acknowledged the “apples and oranges” nature of wanting Omega to essentially emulate Rolex, Patek, etc. So, not to ignore and talk past your acknowledgment, but instead flesh it out a bit.

There’s a strange way in which Omega is colloquially and generally viewed as a competitor to the likes of Rolex and Patek. After-all, if they were music bands, they do all make and sell music, and each of their records can be found in the collections of people who really enjoy music.

This collaboration between O&S, though, I think has served to highlight - perhaps uncomfortably - just how different Omega’s genre of music is from the Rolex and Patek’s of the music scene.

Let’s start with the practical difference (least important, but level-setting): Rolex and Patek are incapable of this sort of collaboration, because they don’t have an in-house high-low brand to play with. To extend our music metaphor: as a practical matter, people saying “Rolex” would never do a collaboration with a hiphop band are sort of ignoring that Rolex the band doesn’t even include an electric guitar player or a drummer.

While Rolex lacking an electric guitar player or drummer is a purely practical matter, it does also point to the more important and deeper philosophical distinctions:

Rolex doesn’t have an electric guitar player or drummer, because it’s a classical string quartet managed by an independent label that plays on NPR. Omega has meanwhile released an a collaboration with a hiphop group because it’s a rock group managed by William Morris that plays on pop radio.

[At this point, people’s own musical biases are probably starting to rightfully distort my metaphor. But feel free to plug in your personal tastes to what I hope is the obvious thrust of the metaphor.]

Maybe it’s hard to imagine a world where a string quartet has a 28% market share, while a pop radio rock band has an only 8% market share, but - watch-wise - that’s essentially the watch world we live in, in my view.

And don’t assume I think that pop-rock bands on a major label with commercial management are inferior musicians. Personally, Radiohead comes to mind for me as a potential candidate for the sort Omega of the watch world in this metaphor. Classically trained, unarguably great musicians, and still yet very commercial. Radiohead plays Lollapalooza. Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke did a collaboration with the rapper MF Doom.

Just as Omega, the watch-company, has multiple watches with cartoon characters on the dial [
as @STANDY also pointed out] and any number of pop-radio major-label behaviors to date, that we also don’t expect from a classical string quartet.

That metaphor’s stage fully set (pun intended):

The watch world is presently a bit stodgy, with an indy string quartet (Rolex) having a 28% market share and several other even more “Indy” string quartets (eg Patek, AP) having similar if more limited successes. (VC is also a string quartet, but self-consciously hides that it’s also signed to a major label.)

Meanwhile, there’s a classically trained pop
Rock group (Omega) on a major label with only an 8% market share but a loyal following.

The rock group that plays Lollapalooza has now just done a cross-over song with a hip-hop group, in an obvious appeal to capture additional market share - while also having some fun and arguably making a song that is … fun.

As audiophiles, we can say what we’d like about the musicality of the resulting rock-hiphop song, but that song is currently billboard’s #1 hit among “the masses” … and just moment’s before Rolex releases yet another recording of Beethoven’s No. 14, Op 131.

Which is a characteristically long-winded way to say that simply dismissing as “apples and oranges” benefits from some fleshing out.

We’re many of us at heart heady rock fans, who also appreciate some classical string quartet music. They’re both in our record collection.

But when the major label pop rock band does a hiphop collab song, we’d never think to say well that string quartet would never do such a thing. Not only do they not have a drummer, they’re sort of stodgy NPR-ish sorts that trade on re-recordings of classics.

Omega also plays music and might be trying to gain market share from Rolex, but it’s not doing so by trying to outplay Rolex on the violin. It’s trying to attract people to a new genre.

Not at all to suggest Omega is guaranteed to nail it, and there are still plenty of critiques to be had - but it would be great to better settle our collective instincts of “Rolex must be laughing its ass off right now.”

Since the underdog 8% market share Omega has the #1 billboard hit on pop radio with a (gasp!) irreverent-to-real-music hiphop song, just on on the cusp of 28% market share Rolex’s release of its re-recording of a classical quartet, I’m not so sure it’s all chuckles over there!

Maybe Rolex the string quartet is laughing at Omega’s rock-hiphop crossover song. But if so, it’s so on brand, it’s kind of uninteresting.

M'Bob · Mar 29, 2022

cvalue13
Wanted to circle back to this separate point now [one point that by coincidence @STANDY touched on while I was typing]

You acknowledged the “apples and oranges” nature of wanting Omega to essentially emulate Rolex, Patek, etc. So, not to ignore and talk past your acknowledgment, but instead flesh it out a bit.

There’s a strange way in which Omega is colloquially and generally viewed as a competitor to the likes of Rolex and Patek. After-all, if they were music bands, they do all make and sell music, and each of their records can be found in the collections of people who really enjoy music.

This collaboration between O&S, though, I think has served to highlight - perhaps uncomfortably - just how different Omega’s genre of music is from the Rolex and Patek’s of the music scene.

Let’s start with the practical difference (least important, but level-setting): Rolex and Patek are incapable of this sort of collaboration, because they don’t have an in-house high-low brand to play with. To extend our music metaphor: as a practical matter, people saying “Rolex” would never do a collaboration with a hiphop band are sort of ignoring that Rolex the band doesn’t even include an electric guitar player or a drummer.

While Rolex lacking an electric guitar player or drummer is a purely practical matter, it does also point to the more important and deeper philosophical distinctions:

Rolex doesn’t have an electric guitar player or drummer, because it’s a classical string quartet managed by an independent label that plays on NPR. Omega has meanwhile released an a collaboration with a hiphop group because it’s a rock group managed by William Morris that plays on pop radio.

[At this point, people’s own musical biases are probably starting to rightfully distort my metaphor. But feel free to plug in your personal tastes to what I hope is the obvious thrust of the metaphor.]

Maybe it’s hard to imagine a world where a string quartet has a 28% market share, while a pop radio rock band has an only 8% market share, but - watch-wise - that’s essentially the watch world we live in, in my view.

And don’t assume I think that pop-rock bands on a major label with commercial management are inferior musicians. Personally, Radiohead comes to mind for me as a potential candidate for the sort Omega of the watch world in this metaphor. Classically trained, unarguably great musicians, and still yet very commercial. Radiohead plays Lollapalooza. Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke did a collaboration with the rapper MF Doom.

Just as Omega, the watch-company, has multiple watches with cartoon characters on the dial [
as @STANDY also pointed out] and any number of pop-radio major-label behaviors to date, that we also don’t expect from a classical string quartet.

That metaphor’s stage fully set (pun intended):

The watch world is presently a bit stodgy, with an indy string quartet (Rolex) having a 28% market share and several other even more “Indy” string quartets (eg Patek, AP) having similar if more limited successes. (VC is also a string quartet, but self-consciously hides that it’s also signed to a major label.)

Meanwhile, there’s a classically trained pop
Rock group (Omega) on a major label with only an 8% market share but a loyal following.

The rock group that plays Lollapalooza has now just done a cross-over song with a hip-hop group, in an obvious appeal to capture additional market share - while also having some fun and arguably making a song that is … fun.

As audiophiles, we can say what we’d like about the musicality of the resulting rock-hiphop song, but that song is currently billboard’s #1 hit among “the masses” … and just moment’s before Rolex releases yet another recording of Beethoven’s No. 14, Op 131.

Which is a characteristically long-winded way to say that simply dismissing as “apples and oranges” benefits from some fleshing out.

We’re many of us at heart heady rock fans, who also appreciate some classical string quartet music. They’re both in our record collection.

But when the major label pop rock band does a hiphop collab song, we’d never think to say well that string quartet would never do such a thing. Not only do they not have a drummer, they’re sort of stodgy NPR-ish sorts that trade on re-recordings of classics.

Omega also plays music and might be trying to gain market share from Rolex, but it’s not doing so by trying to outplay Rolex on the violin. It’s trying to attract people to a new genre.

Not at all to suggest Omega is guaranteed to nail it, and there are still plenty of critiques to be had - but it would be great to better settle our collective instincts of “Rolex must be laughing its ass off right now.”

Since the underdog 8% market share Omega has the #1 billboard hit on pop radio with a (gasp!) irreverent-to-real-music hiphop song, just on on the cusp of 28% market share Rolex’s release of its re-recording of a classical quartet, I’m not so sure it’s all chuckles over there!

Maybe Rolex the string quartet is laughing at Omega’s rock-hiphop crossover song. But if so, it’s so on brand, it’s kind of uninteresting.

Another great post, which I thank you for.

You have made it abundantly clear that I hold Omega in higher esteem than the realities of the market. Why? Part observation, part emotional.

First, I can’t ignore the soft spot I have for this brand: my uncle (no, really this time…) had a beautiful moon phase that I admired in my youth, and then when I saw the Moonwatch ads in 1970 touting the “First Watch on the Moon,” well, they had me at…

The history; the aesthetics; the NASA testing. — what’s not to love?

When I finally got my first Ed White (and unlike many things in life that never live up to the hype), I loved it: kept great time, eminently readable, comfortable; yup, hooked.

Then, I bought Rolex, Patek, Vacheron, Audemars, and I had the distinctly opposite reaction: these watches are over-hyped, and hardly live up to their reputations (particularly Patek, and Rolex, which typically seem to be erratic timekeepers).

Thus, given all the above, in my mind I may have elevated the brand to a place that may be erroneous, and thus, the Moonswatch move leaves me uneasy.

gostang9 · Mar 29, 2022

savka
Now, how do we quantify the impact of the global hype and mainstream publicity this collaboration has generated over the course of a few days, not only this year but thinking downstream to future years as some of those who have been newly introduced to watches are converted into consumers and maybe even enthusiasts?

As much as I want to, I still don't get the logic. Of course the success of this experiment in no way relies on my ability to understand it.

MoonSwatch popularity directly relied on people already knowing about the Moonwatch and viewing it favourably. This pre-condition therefore negates the supposed 'benefit' to Omega... no...?

If it boosts Swatch (and/or Omega) in the long-run, bravo! It will be interesting to look back in 10 years and see just what the impact will be estimated to have been at that time.

cvalue13 · Mar 29, 2022

M'Bob
The history; the aesthetics; the NASA testing. — what’s not to love?

I’m here for it, too!

I’m not sure what I said for you to feel you elevate the brand “too much” (suggesting my post implied the contrary?)

Despite its incredible status generally, I just think Omega’s occasionally done plenty of arguably more hokey things - including to the venerable Speedmaster - that were definitely less accretive to the company, making it strange to think this collab is in some way the “last straw”

JwRosenthal · Mar 29, 2022

cvalue13
I’m here for it, too!

I’m not sure what I said for you to feel you elevate the brand “too much” (suggesting my post implied the contrary?)

Despite its incredible status generally, I just think Omega’s occasionally done plenty of arguably more hokey things - including to the venerable Speedmaster - that were definitely less accretive to the company, making it strange to think this collab is in some way the “last straw”

Let’s not forget this one

gostang9 · Mar 29, 2022

In my personal experience, this very Omega Forums is one of the biggest ace's up Omega's sleeve (I know... it's totally separate and not a part of the brand directly).

I was an aspirational watch buyer 10 years ago. I started with a Hamilton and Tissot, then moved on to a Rolex. While researching online for my Explorer II, I came across OF amongst several Rolex forums (and WUS). It didn't take long for me to be attracted to the community here, the type of people who regularly commented, and the nature of discussions. Alternatively, it didn't take long for me to be turned off by the blatant snobbery and 'holier-than-thou' attitude of Rolex and WUS forums. I had never heard of a Speedmaster when I first came here, I had minimal interest in the moon landing, and I have since bought 4 different Speedies (sold 1) and have increased my interest in anything related to space.

Whatever positive impact the MoonSwatch has on interest in Swatch/Omega, I wouldn't be surprised if the algorithms don't point a lot of people to this Forum, where they (at least some of them) will be positively influenced by this community. Impossible to measure, but it may be greater than many of the other justifications being bandied about...

M'Bob · Mar 29, 2022

cvalue13
I’m here for it, too!

I’m not sure what I said for you to feel you elevate the brand “too much” (suggesting my post implied the contrary?)

Despite its incredible status generally, I just think Omega’s occasionally done plenty of arguably more hokey things - including to the venerable Speedmaster - that were definitely less accretive to the company, making it strange to think this collab is in some way the “last straw”

Nope, nothing you said, just my own postulation.

And, yes, you are totally correct: many hokey things plus innumerable Ltd editions, most of which I believe are totally unnecessary. The Speedmaster has enough currency to stand on its own, but then again, I’m a purist, and don’t have to answer to stockholders.

Screwbacks · Mar 29, 2022

now after all being said and done, all speedy-hubbies have found a good excuse to buy their wifeys a new, highly demandable and affordable moonswatches. only to realize a few days after the wifey learned so much about the real thing, the hubbies ended up with moonswatches as his daily beater.😁😕

savka · Mar 29, 2022

gostang9
As much as I want to, I still don't get the logic. Of course the success of this experiment in no way relies on my ability to understand it.

MoonSwatch popularity directly relied on people already knowing about the Moonwatch and viewing it favourably. This pre-condition therefore negates the supposed 'benefit' to Omega... no...?

If it boosts Swatch (and/or Omega) in the long-run, bravo! It will be interesting to look back in 10 years and see just what the impact will be estimated to have been at that time.

I don't think that everyone who waited in line for hours on Saturday were previously familiar with the Speedmaster, at least not deeply. Admittedly, I also don't understand it and don't have a good answer as to how this release got so big among non-WIS/the general public. It was picked up by various media outlets and spread around social media, but how it managed to jump into the mainstream to grab the attention of people in such a big way that they waited in lines overnight for a watch actually baffles me.

Syrte · Mar 29, 2022

G Gixnic
Omega jumped the shark by agreeing to bail out their parent company and putting their logo front/center on a cheap plastic watch.

kelsey
You’re very short term here. I’d even back a short term interest/and price increases in collectable Speedmasters.
I agree with the poster certainly the parent group has sacrificed Omega’s reputation for its own balance sheet gain..

and how about all of those people now Googling “Omega and Moon” on the web and reading about the history? And finding out about the technical aspects?
The failed bid by Rolex whose hands melted in the heat tests because they were the wrong metal…. I’ll call that the gateway to a rabbit hole.

And by the way @kelsey I have zero bias as I am not an Omega collector or enthusiast, I really like some Omega watches but have never owned and never will own a Speedmaster (not even the plastic one as it’s too big) — came here accidentally as an afterthought on the way to the other sub-forums.

lillatroll · Mar 29, 2022

I teach in a secondary school in Azerbaijan, I showed my form group the Moonswatch today during registration, 14 boys and 3 girls all wanted to know where they can get one. They thought they were super cool. I have showed them and talked about watches to them on numerous occasions, some blank faces, some really interested, but never have I had an entire class picking watches. They were even more happy when I told them the price.

Syrte · Mar 29, 2022

lillatroll
I teach in a secondary school in Azerbaijan.

Seriously? Now that is really interesting. I really would love to visit Azerbaidjan as soon as it is feasible -will definitely look you up if and when I do.

JwRosenthal · Mar 29, 2022

lillatroll
I teach in a secondary school in Azerbaijan, I showed my form group the Moonswatch today during registration, 14 boys and 3 girls all wanted to know where they can get one. They thought they were super cool. I have showed them and talked about watches to them on numerous occasions, some blank faces, some really interested, but never have I had an entire class picking watches. They were even more happy when I told them the price.

Yup- fun for the whole family- literally.

Taddyangle · Mar 29, 2022

I do hope Swatch can deliver on the production side. I suspect demand is way more than they planned. If they can deliver to meet the demand and they continue to release new versions each year, I think the will have success in getting these buyers over to Omega in the future. My only comment would be that I think a couple of moonSwatch watches are a bit too much like a Speedmaster. Maybe keep with the crazy colors.

I love the discussion in this thread. Thank you.

What’s happening on March 26th then?

savka

cvalue13

STANDY

pdxleaf

pdxleaf

texasmade

cvalue13

M'Bob

gostang9

cvalue13

JwRosenthal

gostang9

M'Bob

Screwbacks

savka

Syrte

lillatroll

Syrte

JwRosenthal

Taddyangle

Similar threads

Omega smartening up on March 26th?