Reply With QuoteFell out of love with mine. Don't really know why. But no, it isn't. The IWC Mk XII is.
Nope.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Fell out of love with mine. Don't really know why. But no, it isn't. The IWC Mk XII is.
No. Best watch is the Sea-Dweller 16600, but the Moon Watch is a great watch and keeps the basic look from more than 50 years ago - which is somewhat unique in the watch world.
It's just a matter of time...
I didn't say anywhere that Rolex is more technically advanced. They just created the dive watch as we know it. They created the first oyster case with screw down crown. And the Sea-Dweller was the first serious diving tool with the helium escape valve. But those are pretty much the only HUGE technical innovations Rolex had.Originally Posted by M4tt
I'm sure Omega, as a brand, is just as advanced technically.
It's not about that. When people think about Omega, they think about good watches. When people think about Rolex they immediately think about "the best" or "expensive". Rolex is synonymous to wealth and success. We know it's NOT the best watch... not even close... but I'm talking about the general public.
You can buy old vintage Omegas for $100. How much is the cheapest Rolex you can find... something like the Oyster Precision? Ten, fifteen times more.
It's just that Omega will never carry the same brand prestige, no matter how good products they put out. A Daytona will ALWAYS be a lot more desirable than the Speedmaster.
Personally, I don't even like the Daytona very much. It's hopelessly small watch for a big guy. But I would gladly take one because it's such an icon.
Last edited by JPE; 17th August 2019 at 00:44.
The answer is probably no but not because it is not a great watch but because this is a very subjective issue.
There have been a lot of great watches and a lot of achievements in the field but the Speedie and Sub certainly are the two most iconic watches ever.
Easily the most overrated watch in history. At least two failed on moon missions, and they were largely ignored until the internet and Omega marketing made them "legendary." Oh, and there's a reason why Rolex is known in every corner of the world for its quality timepieces and Omega isn't. Omegas don't hold their value, and the company has never made a decent dive watch. They are amazing liars; they claimed the Speedmaster was the "Only watch worn on the Moon" when they knew that wasn't true, they photoshopped speedmasters onto space walking astronauts and used the pictures in their advertising, they even called their first significant dive watch the Seamaster 300 when they knew it was only tested to 200 meters. They literally made their Seamaster the "James Bond watch," by literally paying to make it so when Ian Fleming stipulated his agent wore a Rolex Oyster. The co-axial movement is a perfect example of marketing over matter, as this movement was turned down by other manufacturers but Biver grabbed it up, so now they have this "advancement" that is no more accurate, no more durable and far harder to make and service that a traditional Swiss escapement. So whenever somebody tells you Rolex became Rolex because of marketing, be advised it was word of mouth among divers, scientists and ordinary people of the watches reliability and durability that made them the most famous watch brand in the world, and so sought after that the "preowned " market makes a fortune off of them. Omega is, and always has been, all about marketing not the other way around.
Without quoting the entire post by Boots, I would just say that I disagree. Refer to Matt’s post underneath that has substantial truth to it. I love the Rolex Sub as much as anyone else but can not argue with Omega’s achievements and quality and innovations.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was Blancpain.
It’s a great watch indeed. However, Omega have created way too many versions of this watch.
Every year or so another version is released. I prefer the 70,s model way more the more recent adaptations
I can’t take it seriously now.
This. Sums it up perfectly.
Certainly the best looking chronograph, in my opinion. I would have one of these over a Daytona all day long, in fact I did.
I loved it whilst I had it. The only reason I sold mine was that I didn’t use the chrono function at all and I wanted to keep my collection down to a manageable number, three in my case.
The bad boy of the moon. I've got a black one of those.It could be argued that a Bulova Lunar Pilot watch is equally cool.
The Bulova was used on Apollo 15 and landed on the moon.
Re-read what I wrote. ;)
I didn't know of the Bulova.... it got me looking around and, tbh, I quite like the modern iteration and VERY reasonably priced.
[QUOTE=JPE;5176708]I didn't say anywhere that Rolex is more technically advanced.
They really didn't. That honour falls to Blancpain and Zodiac with the Sea Wolf and Fifty Fathoms respectivelyThey just created the dive watch as we know it.
They created the first oyster case with screw down crown.
Well, yes, they created the first oyster case, because that's Rolex's own name for the technology. However, if you want watches that were entirely waterproof, then Borgel and Dennison were way ahead and it is no coincidence that the Borgel patent of 1906 ran for twenty years. You can actually buy Rolex and W&D watches in both Dennison and Borgel waterproof cases, so there's no possibility that Wilsdorf wasn't fully aware of the tech he was copying. Bear in mind that the first oyster cases bore sod all similarity - like so:
to the later oyster cases, which look suspiciously like the earlier Taubert offerings.
That was for Borgel's second waterproof case, the first:
was patented in 1891 a mere forty years after a running watch was suspended in a fish tank for the entirety of the Great Exhibition to show it was waterproof. Dennison were using screw together watches with screw down crowns even earlier than this. Hell even the Mappin campaign was waterproof, during the Boer War. And lets not forget the All Proof, which really was.
And again, no it wasn't. That was the Doxa 300T, developed with Jacques Cousteau and US Divers it was launched commercially the year that Rolex started testing the Seadweller, which wasn't commercially launched until two years later. Of course, before then Jenny solved the problem properly by having a 1000M capable case that was pressure resistant in both directions, much as the later Seiko Tuna cases are and thus didn't require the bodge of an escape valve.And the Sea-Dweller was the first serious diving tool with the helium escape valve.
Except, as a matter of historical fact they didn't.But those are pretty much the only HUGE technical innovations Rolex had.
Infinitely more so, throughout their history. Don't get me started.I'm sure Omega, as a brand, is just as advanced technically.
No one is denying that Rolex's ad agency have done a fine job.It's not about that. When people think about Omega, they think about good watches. When people think about Rolex they immediately think about "the best" or "expensive". Rolex is synonymous to wealth and success. We know it's NOT the best watch... not even close... but I'm talking about the general public.
The cheapest Rolex Oyster Precision I can find? I picked one up for a shade under fifty quid on ebay a couple of weeks ago:
You can buy old vintage Omegas for $100. How much is the cheapest Rolex you can find... something like the Oyster Precision? Ten, fifteen times more.
https://vod.ebay.co.uk/vod/FetchOrderDetails?sspagename=STRK%3AMESO%3AVPS&ite mid=123849600896&transid=0
Which gives a handy clue to how intrinsically popular Rolex are without a Hodinkee article to explain to people quite how much they like them. It's far from the first time.
However, to answer the more general point, in an efficient market the tension is always between availability and demand. The fact is that Rolex took until 1953 to produce their millionth watch. Omega had produced a million of their calibre 19 alone before Wilsdorf and Davies, let alone Rolex, came into existence. By the time Rolex had produced their two millionth watch, in 1964, Omega had produced around three million of the thirty series movement alone in a little over twenty years. During the fifties and sixties, Omega had more watches chronometer certified than Rolex produced watches.
It's easy to forget that Rolex were absolutely tiny compared to Omega until the seventies and that even today Rolex do not make as many watches a year as Omega did in their hayday. Obviously this isn't a fair comparison, as everyone needed a reliable watch back then whereas now a high end mechanical watch is merely conspicuous consumption, but it's the case. So, to put your comparison in context, the reason that you can find vintage Omega for £100 is that Omega made millions, many many millions, more than Rolex did. Thus supply is always there to meet demand. By your own figures, there are a damned sight more than ten or fifteen times the number of vintage Omega to Rolex, so, in fact there must, by your figures. be more demand for Omega than Rolex. Omega just fulfil it better because historically they were an infinitely more popular brand.
Well, rarer anyway.It's just that Omega will never carry the same brand prestige, no matter how good products they put out. A Daytona will ALWAYS be a lot more desirable than the Speedmaster.
Omega managed to have more brand prestige for most of the time the two companies existed. This certainly changed when Omega effectively went bust in the late seventies and early eighties, but in the late sixties, the idea that an obscure company with a name for decent quality tool watches would challenge Omega within a decade would have been literally unbelievable. If history teaches us anything it is that nothing stays the same.
I know Paul Newman wore one, it had an outhouse Valjoux 72, but as icons go, no one has explained quite why the original looks quite so identical to a certain other well known and slightly iconic chronograph; as homages go, it's pretty good.Personally, I don't even like the Daytona very much. It's hopelessly small watch for a big guy. But I would gladly take one because it's such an icon.
Last edited by M4tt; 18th August 2019 at 07:16.
Best ever watch? No; not even in the top 500. Best current production manually wound chrono in its price range? Yes.
Thread drift alert !
If you want a great history of early water waterproof case design then you can’t find better than this.
https://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/waterproof.php
Edit. And a nice thread over on MWR.
https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...ubmarine+watch
Last edited by HookedSeven; 17th August 2019 at 09:30.
Thanks, I'd not seen the MWR one. They are very good over there aren't they
So many watches, with so many strengths/weaknesses, and so many different preferences. I doubt there can be a 'best ever', but it is a real classic. Even in watches there are few that have lasted as long, more or less unchanged, as the Speedmaster, while still staying 'current'.
But many others I know are completely indifferent about it.
You can hardly call that the first dive watch (bezel, really submersible to greater depths instead of able to withstand some swimming).Re-read what I wrote. ;)
This.
I'm a fan, but it's got its limitations like any watch.
If someone wants to swap my Speedmaster for a Daytona, sure, as long as I could sell it and use some of the funds to buy a Speedmaster again.
I'd take the Speedmaster anytime if they were equally priced.
As others have said, the Daytona isn't a great design...
M
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Last edited by snowman; 17th August 2019 at 12:23.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
This. I don’t currently have a Speedy but wouldn’t touch the Daytona for the above reasons.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
There are three models. A standard satin finish, a PVD, and a polished. Actually there are four... as the satin finish comes in two versions, in bracelet and on strap, with the lug-holes in different places.I didn't know of the Bulova.... it got me looking around and, tbh, I quite like the modern iteration and VERY reasonably priced.
Can be true, but:
Don’t Speedmasters look simply far better?
watchnation had it for £349 but I ummed and arrhed too long. Gone now. In fact everyone that had it at knock down price have all now sold out..... Oh well.
I’ve got one that I wear in rotation as it’s definitely my most legible Chrono. Reason for this is its dial has been pinched from the Speedie but appears very slightly larger so aiding my fading eyesight.
One of the things about a Speedie specially on a bracelet is see how it pings from around 6ft away. When you see them on someone else’s wrist the white against black alongside the metal casing immediately identifies it.
Definitely a classic design that simply is unsurpassed.
my 2d worth.... as a 'classic' I prefer the SMP. You mention spotting from 6ft away. Well tbh there are plenty of speedmaster look a likes out there but the SMP is one of a kind, IMHO. :-)
In terms of size... the Loony does to the Speedy... what the Speedy does to the Reduced.
Hi there
I love my 2254.50 as well so I know where your coming from.
I am scratching my head a bit though about Speedie look-a-likes I’ve always been a bit surprised on how little it has been copied.
The Bulova I suppose was done to fit a Spec they thought NASA would approve back in the 70’s. I can think of a Seiko that was quite like it?
Anyway bring on the experts who will prove me wrong lol.
There's a few which, with my aged eyes, could be mistaken at 6ft...
https://iknowwatches.com/best-omega-...omage-watches/
As you say seiko is the obvious contender
What we today know as the Bulova Lunar Pilot, was the first ever watch (case) to be specifically designed for space. The Speedmaster Mk1 started life as a sports and racing chronograph. After the Mk1 was accepted by NASA, Omega began designing a watch specific for space... this became the Speedmaster Mk2. As it happened it was never used by NASA as it would have had to go through all the qualification tests, and as they already had a qualified watch...
What is interesting is that (bar the hooded lugs) the Bulova Lunar Pilot looks closer to the Speedy Mk2 than it does to the Mk1, with the internal tachymeter scale, the flat crystal, and the 'overall roundness', that did not exist in the Mk1.
Flat acrylics were not particularly common in the '60s and I would love to know why both Omega and Bulova thought that a flat crystal was better.
The hinged-paddle pushers on the Lunar Pilot have not been seen anywhere else. I think they were designed to counteract the problem of the asymmetrical pushers of the Valjoux 72.
Simply because they were not acrylics anymore but rather flat mineral or sapphire glasses I guess.
Best ever watch, no.
Best ever Omega, probably not.
Nice watches though, will probably have to get one (tin tin?) sometime.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Have you seen the current prices of the Tin Tin?
Prices were flat for about 3 years then doubled in 12 months .
Never understood the widespread love with the speedmaster. Just doesn’t do it for me at all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
The "best watch" is a difficult one,I'd go with it being one of the most popular or preferred choice of watch.
"Best" is a personal opinion,and we all have one of those!.
Best ever ?
Probably not.
Stone cold classic ?
Absolutely !
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
It’s a hell of a watch but the lack of water resistance is a killer for me.
You know that the Apollo astronauts frequently trained underwater, wearing their watches? It’s not a dive watch, but it’s perfectly competent in water
I was about to reply the following here - "That may be so, but even Omega themselves do not recommend even the simplest swim with a WR50m watch. As such, if you got water ingress problems, they would not repair under warranty, because you would have been exceeding the performance of the watch."
But before posting, I looked up on Omega's site to confirm their position. Their WR guide is not one that suggests you cannot do this without this WR, or any such thing.
It merely states for all WR depths up to 200m that watches are "RESISTANT TO WATER UP TO THE SPECIFIED DEPTH"
So it seems that Omega are happy to have their WR tested to its rating albeit with the caveat that seals are to be inspected every year.
So go ahead, swim with your Speedie, it can handle it.........
Perhaps t is the greatest watch after all...........
Dave
I imagine most people have no desire to go swimming wearing their watch. I certainly haven’t. The Speedy is just fine for normal use, excellent in fact. The design has endured for well over fifty years. Almost unchanged.
To each their own. I disagree. Every time I swim, surf, SUP or just go near the water, I do so with my watch on.
Leaving my watch on the beach while I swim seems a worse idea to me, and maybe, more risky than keeping it on.
D
But that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Do you swim with your clothes on , your shoes? And what about your wallet? Are they all water resistant? Most people swim in a spa or pool. They have places for their wallet, watch and so on.
I’ve lived by the sea much of my life, and even worked at a swimming pool. Did I need a serious water resistant watch? Not at all. Watches and water are a bad mix, not least because seals perish ....
No.
Its a nice watch, but its low water resistance is prohibitive.
It's a "classic", but I prefer the Zenith El P.
I often use mine for sea kayaking as it's really useful for timing things without having to prat about.
If I haven't used it recently I simply strip it, check it and slightly grease it with silicon grease. Like any instrument, routine maintenance is the key to predictable performance. Personally I wouldn't dream of kayaking, swimming or diving without a watch on and often two. As a rule it's more important, not less, to track time accurately when in water.
Last edited by M4tt; 19th August 2019 at 11:53.
To you, maybe not, but to me it does.
No, no, no, and no. Even though the first two may be, my wallet is not even on the beach. There might be a tenner in my shorts, but that's it. My watch is by far the most valuable and portable thing that I take to the beach, so waering it on me makes sense. If I am surfing for up to 2 hours it certainly makes sense for me to know the time, and in certain locations it very much helps being able to know the state of the tide. All other valuables are locked in the car, and my car keys are in a combination key safe fixed to the car, just like everyone else's in the car park.
As I said before, that's fine for you. I don't use my watches that way. However, I am not sure which of us is in the minority.
D
Posting Permissions
