Reply With QuoteI know which one I'd rather have... the one without any red.
I recently added a 2254.5 to my collection so I thought it would be nice to compare it with its Granddad the 165.024. Here are a few quick wrist shots.
You can see the connection between them, and I have to say the 2254.50 is a great descendant :-!.
I know which one I'd rather have... the one without any red.
Interesting to see them side by side - not something I've seen before. Whilst I don't want to knock your new watch, I prefer your old one.
Me too.Originally Posted by shadowninja
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Interesting comparison, Neal - it made me realise what a good size the old 300 is :)
It was a large watch for it's day Bob, but makes it a very wearable vintage watch...if you can find one :wink:
Fortunately for me, ones like this are easier to find than yours :)It was a large watch for it's day Bob, but makes it a very wearable vintage watch...if you can find one :wink:
Bob, that is far more practical than mine, and still retains the classic look from the 60's.Fortunately for me, ones like this are easier to find than yours :)It was a large watch for it's day Bob, but makes it a very wearable vintage watch...if you can find one :wink:
Cracking pair, amazingly similar in size :)
"I looked with pity not untinged with scorn upon these trivial-minded passers-by"
Like father and all grown up son :)
I must admit I do prefer the look of the vintage with date.
It's just a matter of time...
Nice pair. I do think the original bezel is better - the font for the numbers is just right. I have the GMT version of the 2254 and the font has always jarred.
Otherwise, yes, the modern descendent is very pleasing on the eye - far better than the Bond IMO.
:D The old 300 is the one I'd want, such a perfect look.
I still like the new one (yes I know I'm a heathen) but it's a very practical and extremely good looking watch.
Saying that I'm not keen on the He valve or the look of the bracelet, but that says more about me than the watch :?
I wouldn't mind seeing that up close because I would imagine the differences would be even clearer. I bet the modern lume is very impressive too!
Great new addition Neal :thumbleft:
The original is a classic and really lovely. I just can't get on with the bezel on the new ones though.
Dave
I think they are both superb in their own right... I'd be happy with either, or both, but would need to have at least one of them (which is why I have a 2254!)
Had the 2254 and want both of these in the near future.
Lovely, you can definitely see the design DNA. I wouldn't say no to either of them!
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
I'd never noticed that dial design is so similar before, they look good together.
Recently picked up a scruffy 2254 and sent it straight off for a refurbishment - I now know what I want next though having seen the pair together.
Sorry to go against the grain, but the one on the right is far more attractive to me. The bezel looks quite dated to me on the 'original' and the 'distortion' where the crystal meets the bezel is a definite downer for me.
Cracking watch (on the right) - liking it a lot. 8)
I`ve got a 2254.50 and I do like it.....but the original Seamaster 300 has a vintage appeal that's hard to resist, a bit like comparing the 5513 Rolex Sub to the modern version. I`m seriously considering an STS Seamaster 300 because I prefer an 'as new' example to an aged original.
Ironically, I`m not a dive watch fanatic. The 2254.50 Omega, the original Seamaster 300 and the iconic Rolex sub are the only models that interest me.
Paul
That's a really interesting comparison shot, and having recently purchased a vintage 300 I have to say I like the older version. There have been many forums about the comparisons between the 'aged' 300 dials and the newer refinished versions as well. I doubt if we've heard the last of it... 8)
How much do the old ones go for? I seen that watch in a classic car magazine and was wondering what the model number was, it is superb!
nice comparison of the old and new there. I prefer the new one but I'm biased 'cos I'm wearing my 2254 right now.. Got to say it is the most comfortable wearer out of my modest 7 watches. I love wearing it on my bike too and it is def getting the most wrist time. I love the little red tip on the second hand ( easily pleased :) ), but I could do without the HEV , wished they had not bothered with it but I suppose it's the feature that sets them apart - would not be a Seamaster without one I guess, bit like Rolex & cyclops... In Flash Harry's pics it looks like the hands/ seconds are dark or matt not gilt ?
cheers,
bry
The "modern" "vintage" SM300 is a great watch. I have one and it is a great everyday wearer. Love it so much got the 2254 to go with it as wellWas thinking of doing a side by side shot but Flashharry has beaten me to it...
Cheers,
Steve
One "Big Triangle" was sold on the forum last week for £1800 (head only), but the last one I saw for sale on it's original bracelet sold for £2500 at TOWS.
LOL :lol: ! The red goes orange after six or seven years!!! Still looks OK though. Had mine for about nine years I think. They both look great.
I like both, for different reasons.
In fact this afternnon I'm going to check out a 2254 that I might buy. Fingers crossed.
Both superb watches but put off the newer by the HUGE numbering on the bezel.
My SMP doesn't have such massive numbers.
+1 :)
I have one of these as well, guess I like the classic "Big Triangle" dial...
Very nice I like the 2254.5 I would like the mid-size which I believe is about 36.5mm great watch.Havn't seen one for sometime.
I really like the old 300, very 8)
They look superb Neil, great pair of watches and each with it's own character but obvious heritage
Cheers Tom
Hi NealI recently added a 2254.5 to my collection so I thought it would be nice to compare it with its Granddad the 165.024. Here are a few quick wrist shots.
You can see the connection between them, and I have to say the 2254.50 is a great descendant :-!.
They certainly are both great watches....I've been lucky enough to own both and would recommend them - however the 2254.50 has gone , but Old boy is still here ! 8)
Cheers Neil
the 300 looks just perfect,and i,m a big fan of the 2254.
as someone else mentioned the simpler bezel bezel on the 300 looks better,to me anyway.
2 great watches though
Sold my '14 to help fund a 2254. Not sure that I did not on the whole prefer the '14! A 2254 with a '14-type bezel would be perfect. I read in this forum once that 'no diver bettered the '14 unless one could stretch to a Sub or a 2254' - I'm not sure that I agree with the 2nd part of that statement.
Well thanks for all the :thumbright: , the old girl seems the most popular..
Happiness is a...
Is it possible to fit the 2254.50 bracelet to the Seamaster 300?
Paul
Love the patina on the old 8) SM 300They certainly are both great watches....I've been lucky enough to own both and would recommend them - however the 2254.50 has gone , but Old boy is still here !
The old Seamaster is just beautifully. I wish that the 2254 dial was without the date.
Paul,
It might fit, but the bracelet on the 2254.5 is SO much thicker I don't think it would look right. See photo below
i love that old seamaster, are they hard to come by?
They do turn up from time to time, but please take care as there are plenty of fakes out there.
A big triangle sold on the sales corner a couple of weeks ago and there was was another vintage Sm 300 was sold last week.
Take care if you look on the bay as many of the are made up of NOS Omega bits or are outright fakes.
eye i think i spotted 2 fakes on ebay already actually.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Vintage-OMEGA-SEA ... 335a82dc8b
Whilst I am no expert on the SM300, although I am trying to learn as much as I can as it’s my next grail, that is not an original. They even say its NOS in the blurb. :D
Looks far far too new, even for NOS. If that makes any sense :happy6:
i always thought NOS was 'new old stock' - as in old stock that has never been used...
+1
There's something about the 300 that makes it, just right and cannot be improved upon imo. :)
Both are stunnig!
Correct, but since Omega remake new parts for their old watches (thankfully for vintage collectors), some people *eBay sellers* have taken liberties with the term NOS. Some do it unknowingly and some do it intentionally IME. Similarly "isofrane" - one of the most misused terms in the watch world.
Posting Permissions
