Originally Posted by
Itsguy
The main change to the case is the removal of the subtle crown guard that made the right hand side of the watch slightly wider, and this will also have changed the lugs slightly. Maybe this was what sparked the obsession with making the watch more symmetrical, and also revealed the crown which now looks more prominent - and of course isn't a symmetrical element, so that theory can't ever quite work in practice. That's the beauty of a date at 3, it ties in with the crown, reflecting it. From there, I guess they tried tinkering with the crown shape to make it blend in more, and perhaps it's easier to use.
The AT is a great watch, probably a modern classic, Omega's answer to the Datejust, and yet they can never quite resolve its different elements. They keep trying - should it have PCLs, or a crown guard? Should the date window have a surround that ties in with the indices, do the indices feel comfortable on the teak dial, and which way should the teak dial go? It's still a great watch but they can never quite get all the different elements perfectly in harmony. Arguably the best effort had the brushed centre links and no date surround, like the older applied indices AT quartz, even though the date looked a bit unfinished. Yet adding a surround in the style of the chunky indices didn't work out either and was soon changed back.
The more I look at these new ones, the more I think that it's still a work in progress, a perfectly good watch, but not destined to go down in history as the ultimate AT. Then again, it will need to be seen for real to be sure.