I have this exact watch….it’s is easily my most complimented watch. Even my Rolex AD was staring at it and asking me about it when I went in to try on exhibition Rolex watches lol.
Yes but even me, i die ha4d omega fan wouldnt pay gold price for an omega or any othe mainstream brand( rolex included) unlesa it is the special gold apollo 1969. And many people say that.
It's a really good looking watch. But one must wonder why this 150m water resistant watch is 0.7+mm thicker than any 300m water resistant Seamaster Professional prior to the 2018 redesign, including the co-axial model from 2012-2018 (I would argue that the 2500D - ETA 2892-A2 with three-level co-axial escapement - is proof of concept that Omega/Swatch can, in theory, make these watches thinner). By the way, by some quirk of engineering, the 2500D has a beat rate of 25,200, but it doesn't have a silicon hairspring.
This watch also has the exhibition back, the twin barrels, the 60-hour power reserve, and the jumping time-zone/date setting function and the METAS certified accuracy. I'm not a watch designer, but maybe packing in all those features requires an additional 0.7 mm of width to the case.
@@highnrising The exhibition case back probably adds some thickness. The twin barrels and 60-hour reserve wouldn't, as each barrel carries less power reserve than the single 48 hour of the 2500D. The time zone hour hand could, but it wouldn't be by much. Lastly, METAS accuracy doesn't have much to do with watch thickness. A 2500D-equipped watch would likely be able to meet METAS if it simply had a silicon hairspring as COSC tests show it consistently exceeded, by far, the chronometer standard of -4/+6 seconds per day as well as the later METAS standard of a daily average chronometric precision of 0/+5 seconds per day. The 2500D was never adjusted in 6 positions, but the 6 position METAS test allows for deviation of 0 to 12 seconds per day so it would likely pass that component as well. The point is that it's conceivable that Omega can engineer a way to make these watches thinner. And, if it did, they would eliminate the one single weak point of their modern watches.
@@hayesjam to say that 0.7mm of added thickness is a “weakness” is laughable to say the least… @highnrising it’s more than normal for a clear case back to add some thickness. Also 0.7mm is simply unnoticeable to the wearer.
Another thing, referring to Omega as Omega/Swatch is the same as saying Lamborghini/Volkswagen. No body does it nor is it in anyway accurate and makes you sound a bit petty to be honest.
@@hayesjam I guess I'm a pretty big guy, 7 1/4" wrist, so I don't think of this as really thick. As long as it fits under a shirt cuff, I'm fine with it. I'll admit that the Seamaster 300m and Planet Ocean chronographs are ridiculously thick, even by my standards, to the point that it's a deal-breaker. They're so thick that I feel like it would be hard to avoid scraping or banging them against things just in normal day-to-day wearing.
Have had this around 6 months it gets a lot of wrist time and I have a way too large 12 watch rotation going right now. Fantastic watch
I have the steel, center seconds and I’d love this thing too haha.
Mine is brutally accurate, comfortable bracelet and plenty of WR
Stunning watch!
Gorgeous watch!
Beautiful w arch ,thanks ❤️🏴👍
Lovely looking watch with some great features, nice to see them finally coming onto the secondary market
I have this exact watch….it’s is easily my most complimented watch. Even my Rolex AD was staring at it and asking me about it when I went in to try on exhibition Rolex watches lol.
My favorite watch.
A 18k full gold case will look sick with this dial.
Yes but even me, i die ha4d omega fan wouldnt pay gold price for an omega or any othe mainstream brand( rolex included) unlesa it is the special gold apollo 1969. And many people say that.
Rather than two tone, Omega should make this in solid 9k Bronze Gold.
It's a really good looking watch. But one must wonder why this 150m water resistant watch is 0.7+mm thicker than any 300m water resistant Seamaster Professional prior to the 2018 redesign, including the co-axial model from 2012-2018 (I would argue that the 2500D - ETA 2892-A2 with three-level co-axial escapement - is proof of concept that Omega/Swatch can, in theory, make these watches thinner). By the way, by some quirk of engineering, the 2500D has a beat rate of 25,200, but it doesn't have a silicon hairspring.
This watch also has the exhibition back, the twin barrels, the 60-hour power reserve, and the jumping time-zone/date setting function and the METAS certified accuracy. I'm not a watch designer, but maybe packing in all those features requires an additional 0.7 mm of width to the case.
@@highnrising The exhibition case back probably adds some thickness. The twin barrels and 60-hour reserve wouldn't, as each barrel carries less power reserve than the single 48 hour of the 2500D. The time zone hour hand could, but it wouldn't be by much. Lastly, METAS accuracy doesn't have much to do with watch thickness. A 2500D-equipped watch would likely be able to meet METAS if it simply had a silicon hairspring as COSC tests show it consistently exceeded, by far, the chronometer standard of -4/+6 seconds per day as well as the later METAS standard of a daily average chronometric precision of 0/+5 seconds per day. The 2500D was never adjusted in 6 positions, but the 6 position METAS test allows for deviation of 0 to 12 seconds per day so it would likely pass that component as well.
The point is that it's conceivable that Omega can engineer a way to make these watches thinner. And, if it did, they would eliminate the one single weak point of their modern watches.
@@hayesjam to say that 0.7mm of added thickness is a “weakness” is laughable to say the least…
@highnrising it’s more than normal for a clear case back to add some thickness. Also 0.7mm is simply unnoticeable to the wearer.
Another thing, referring to Omega as Omega/Swatch is the same as saying Lamborghini/Volkswagen. No body does it nor is it in anyway accurate and makes you sound a bit petty to be honest.
@@hayesjam I guess I'm a pretty big guy, 7 1/4" wrist, so I don't think of this as really thick. As long as it fits under a shirt cuff, I'm fine with it. I'll admit that the Seamaster 300m and Planet Ocean chronographs are ridiculously thick, even by my standards, to the point that it's a deal-breaker. They're so thick that I feel like it would be hard to avoid scraping or banging them against things just in normal day-to-day wearing.
This watch is EXCELLENT and Danger SEXY. But it only in my drem