Community Stories

What is the thickness of the Omega 8500, 8800, and 8900 movements?

502 to right
Posts
867
Likes
889
I keep seeing people say modern Omega watches are too thick because the co-axial movements are too thick. I've done some internet searching and it would appear the 8500, 8800, and 8900 thickness are comparable to the Rolex 31XX movement--which no one considers "thick."

Is there any formal confirmation of the movement thickness? Any databases that include this information?
Edited:
 
dsio
Posts
33,129
Likes
37,868
I have a pretty complete db but it’s a work in progress still.

8500 is 5.5mm 8900 is 5.5mm 8800 is 4.6

The issue is that many Omega models have very thick cases between their domed crystal and sapphire display back, but the movements could get thinner
 
YY77
Posts
5,725
Likes
26,981
@Archer posted this about various Omega calibers recently and mentions a few other brands as well;

https://omegaforums.net/posts/2493284/ Archer
Archer ·
padders padders
Hmm, just a myth? In our timeframe of reference the 1120, 1861 and especially 3313 seemed wafer thin vs the 8500/8900 and 9900. It’s only a mm or 2 (and the separate 7750 dervatives were always fat I know)
I think we are talking about different things. I was not comparing Omega's movements of today with Omega's movements of 20-30 years ago. I was comparing them to other brands on the market - in that context the movements (not the watches) are not really that thick.

But even if we take your interpretation, the differences are not quite as dramatic as you make out. Let's look at...
 
Jakeys
Posts
555
Likes
1,316
The comment linked above from Archer pretty much kills the argument the movements are solely to blame, or even a big contributor. The only area where I don't agree with what Archer said is his opinion that this only matters to enthusiasts, or technically he said collectors but I would have thought enthusiasts really.

I do think this matters to the general public. Enthusiasts clearly bring this up all the time, but so does mainstream watch media and I also see it very commonly on social media as well. I've spoken to people in person who complain that the current generation watches were too thick when they tried them on. I know one person who recently bought a current gen SMP and has remarked it's a bit thick, though not enough to bother him. He was very impressed with how thin my first gen was though.

Omega aren't stupid, they would be aware of this and they haven't shown any indication they intend to reverse course. I'm sure they have the numbers and they've decided from a business perspective it's not worth the effort and cost trying to slim down their designs to capture slightly more customers. Their modern price rises put far more people off than their thickness, I think.
 
502 to right
Posts
867
Likes
889
dsio dsio
I have a pretty complete db but it’s a work in progress still.

8500 is 5.5mm 8900 is 5.5mm 8800 is 4.6

The issue is that many Omega models have very thick cases between their domed crystal and sapphire display back, but the movements could get thinner

All of those thicknesses are thinner than the Rolex 3135. I don't think Omega needs to make them thinner.

I measured my Seamasters vs. a 16610 Submariner and found the slightly domed Omega crystal added about 1.2mm of thickness as compared to the flat crystal on the Rolex. That's additional thickness that is largely unnoticeable. But even still, many Omega models (Seamasters, Planet Ocean) wear too thick.
 
502 to right
Posts
867
Likes
889
YY77 YY77
@Archer posted this about various Omega calibers recently and mentions a few other brands as well;

https://omegaforums.net/posts/2493284/ Archer
Archer ·
padders padders
Hmm, just a myth? In our timeframe of reference the 1120, 1861 and especially 3313 seemed wafer thin vs the 8500/8900 and 9900. It’s only a mm or 2 (and the separate 7750 dervatives were always fat I know)
I think we are talking about different things. I was not comparing Omega's movements of today with Omega's movements of 20-30 years ago. I was comparing them to other brands on the market - in that context the movements (not the watches) are not really that thick.

But even if we take your interpretation, the differences are not quite as dramatic as you make out. Let's look at...
Thanks. I had posted in that thread but I didn't find it in my Google search today. If Archer says it that's good enough for me. But I wish the various movement databases would add this information since that's where people are normally directed when they search.
 
padders
Posts
10,237
Likes
16,033
The argument isn’t dead for me. Omega used to made 3-4mm thick movements. Now they are more like 6-7mm in some cases. I don’t care what Rolex does because I don’t buy Rolex (well not recent ones anyhow). I’m still of the opinion (which is based on solid facts) that recent Omega movements are thicker than they were and that is to be lamented.
Edited:
 
R
Posts
58
Likes
21
I had a seamaster rated at 600 mtr in for service. The domed frontsaphire edge was 3.8 mm thick so with the dome included well north of 4mm. Glass in the case back was also around 3mm. This explains a lot on the use size of this watch irrespective of the movement itself.
 
Archer
Posts
29,105
Likes
75,220
Jakeys Jakeys
The only area where I don't agree with what Archer said is his opinion that this only matters to enthusiasts, or technically he said collectors but I would have thought enthusiasts really.
Well, the reason I said something similar to what you are saying here is exactly this...

Jakeys Jakeys
Omega aren't stupid, they would be aware of this and they haven't shown any indication they intend to reverse course. I'm sure they have the numbers and they've decided from a business perspective it's not worth the effort and cost trying to slim down their designs to capture slightly more customers. Their modern price rises put far more people off than their thickness, I think.
Watches keep selling regardless of the thickness. Now could they sell more if they were thinner? Perhaps, but how do we actually know this, and would the increased sales be significant enough to warrant the redesign of all these watches? That's a more difficult question to answer.
 
502 to right
Posts
867
Likes
889
padders padders
I don’t care what Rolex does because I don’t buy Rolex (well not recent ones anyhow).

I think the Rolex comparison is relevant is because virtually no one says Rolex models such as the Submariner, GMT, Explorer, Datejust, Oyster Perpetual, or Yacht-Master are too thick. If the Rolex movements are thicker than the Omega movements, it's clearly not a movement thickness issue for Omega. It's a decision with respect to crystals, cases, and casebacks.

I've kept a bookmark of this thread so I can refer to it in the future when someone inevitably claims that Omega movement thickness is the reason for Omega having a reputation for making thick watches.
Edited:
 
Sign up or log in to reply...