[Perseus]

Christopher Ward uses grade 2 titanium, all real watch companies use 3 or 5. Seriously.

Why can I get a Pelagos with titanium bracelet, a real bracelet, for half this amount?

Something is off here with their logic.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Unless the grade is stated I assume grade 2. The Tudor Pelagos is grade 2 and Omega uses grade 5 on the PO. Grade 2 may have been used for the dull matte finish.

 

[solesman]

It is grade 2. Says on their website.

Unless the grade is stated I assume grade 2. The Tudor Pelagos is grade 2 and Omega uses grade 5 on the PO. Grade 2 may have been used for the dull matte finish.

 

[iinsic]

A slightly smaller case would be nice, too, but I'd imagine that this would bloat the overall size of the watch due to Omega movements not exactly being slim.

Tino, Omega uses the new cal. 8800 in SMPs now, which is the same diameter as the cal. 2500 and only a half-millimeter thicker. It looks positively tiny inside an open 42mm SMP. It would fit fine in a 36.25mm midsize SMP ... IF they would update the midsize.

When I saw this watch - and the price - I started feeling better about the BB58 (and the only real objection I have ever had to that watch is the faux riveted bracelet). The BB58 might be faux vintage, but at least it looks like its direct antecedent (right down to those ratty rivets). Moreover, it is made of steel, so none of that "plasticky" feel of titanium. And, at ø39mm, it is a much more reasonable size for everyday wear than the 42mm SMP. I think it's even slightly thinner than the SMP.

 

[ReticulatedPython]

Terribly overpriced for the Bond novelty, but based on the trailer the movie will be junk.

 

[Betterthere]

Tino, Omega uses the new cal. 8800 in SMPs now, which is the same diameter as the cal. 2500 and only a half-millimeter thicker. It looks positively tiny inside an open 42mm SMP. It would fit fine in a 36.25mm midsize SMP ... IF they would update the midsize.

When I saw this watch - and the price - I started feeling better about the BB58 (and the only real objection I have ever had to that watch is the faux riveted bracelet). The BB58 might be faux vintage, but at least it looks like its direct antecedent (right down to those ratty rivets). Moreover, it is made of steel, so none of that "plasticky" feel of titanium. And, at ø39mm, it is a much more reasonable size for everyday wear than the 42mm SMP. I think it's even slightly thinner than the SMP.

Tried one on last week in Charleston. very disappointing just felt tiny. No pop.

 

[teeritz]

Tino, Omega uses the new cal. 8800 in SMPs now, which is the same diameter as the cal. 2500 and only a half-millimeter thicker. It looks positively tiny inside an open 42mm SMP. It would fit fine in a 36.25mm midsize SMP ... IF they would update the midsize.

When I saw this watch - and the price - I started feeling better about the BB58 (and the only real objection I have ever had to that watch is the faux riveted bracelet). The BB58 might be faux vintage, but at least it looks like its direct antecedent (right down to those ratty rivets). Moreover, it is made of steel, so none of that "plasticky" feel of titanium. And, at ø39mm, it is a much more reasonable size for everyday wear than the 42mm SMP. I think it's even slightly thinner than the SMP.

Rob, I hope you're well.

Been a while since I paid close attention to Omega calibres. I still love the brand, but it's not as high up my ladder as it used to be due to the steady and (for me) unachievable pricing of the last five years or so. Nice to know that the movements have gotten slimmer.

Regarding the BB58, I've had my name on a waiting list for the last four or five months. Tried it on last month when I FINALLY saw one in the metal. I'd begun to suspect that the watch didn't actually exist and that every photo that I saw of it online was one part of a big Photoshop conspiracy.
Happy to say that I liked how it sat on my (even thinner) wrist, despite the very slim possibility that the blade of the inner clasp section may be longer than the curve of my wrist.
Suppose I'll find out soon enough when my reserved model comes in.

Back to this new Bond watch, I still think sword hands were the way to go. That's perhaps my one main quibble/gripe about it.
Would have given the watch a much bolder look.

 

[om3ga_fan]

Not the current/latest Bond Seamaster but two solid veterans.

My 2541.80 (left) just returned from Archer (THANK YOU!). A few weeks back I dropped it and it stopped working. Was overdue for a service anyway, so in it went. Back today looking fantastic. Archer, as always, does impeccable work. This was my first Omega ~almost 19 years ago. The 2531.80 was added later. I usually keep one on the bracelet and the other on a variety of straps. Both watches are quite sentimental to me.

As for the new 007 timepiece... I have a feeling I will be more interested in the newest Aqua Terra that looks to be seen in the Matera scenes. The SMP is lovely but overpriced for what you’re getting. I’ll stick with my conventional black 2018 SMP.

Cheers all!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iinsic]

Regarding the BB58, I've had my name on a waiting list for the last four or five months. Tried it on last month when I FINALLY saw one in the metal. I'd begun to suspect that the watch didn't actually exist and that every photo that I saw of it online was one part of a big Photoshop conspiracy.
Happy to say that I liked how it sat on my (even thinner) wrist, despite the very slim possibility that the blade of the inner clasp section may be longer than the curve of my wrist.
Suppose I'll find out soon enough when my reserved model comes in.

I've toyed with simply getting a BB58 on a strap, and picking up Strapcode's custom-fitted oyster (oops ... I mean Super O-Boyer ;-)) bracelet. No rivets. But...

Tudor did take something of a hit in my esteem when I learned that their much-hawked two-tone offerings were not, in fact, really stainless and 18k gold. It seems that all of the gold bits are what we in the US refer to as "gold-filled" ("gold-capped" in the EU, I think). You will not find a whisper about that in any official Tudor literature or websites, but there it is. Can you imagine paying thousands of dollars (or pounds) for a Tudor "gold" watch, and one day seeing that the "gold" has worn off areas most exposed to wear? One could buy a Stauer, which is "richly layered in solid gold," for much, much less, and the result would be the same ... a relegation to the sock drawer. :roll:

 

[TaTaToothy]

I've toyed with simply getting a BB58 on a strap, and picking up Strapcode's custom-fitted oyster (oops ... I mean Super O-Boyer ;-)) bracelet. No rivets. But...

Tudor did take something of a hit in my esteem when I learned that their much-hawked two-tone offerings were not, in fact, really stainless and 18k gold. It seems that all of the gold bits are what we in the US refer to as "gold-filled" ("gold-capped" in the EU, I think). You will not find a whisper about that in any official Tudor literature or websites, but there it is. Can you imagine paying thousands of dollars (or pounds) for a Tudor "gold" watch, and one day seeing that the "gold" has worn off areas most exposed to wear? One could buy a Stauer, which is "richly layered in solid gold," for much, much less, and the result would be the same ... a relegation to the sock drawer. :roll:

To be fair, the end links and bezel of the Tudor S&G are solid gold, and there is a considerable amount of gold on the crown and links. I've read that the total amount of gold by weight is more than on a five-digit two-tone Datejust.

 

[Betterthere]

I've toyed with simply getting a BB58 on a strap, and picking up Strapcode's custom-fitted oyster (oops ... I mean Super O-Boyer ;-)) bracelet. No rivets. But...

Tudor did take something of a hit in my esteem when I learned that their much-hawked two-tone offerings were not, in fact, really stainless and 18k gold. It seems that all of the gold bits are what we in the US refer to as "gold-filled" ("gold-capped" in the EU, I think). You will not find a whisper about that in any official Tudor literature or websites, but there it is. Can you imagine paying thousands of dollars (or pounds) for a Tudor "gold" watch, and one day seeing that the "gold" has worn off areas most exposed to wear? One could buy a Stauer, which is "richly layered in solid gold," for much, much less, and the result would be the same ... a relegation to the sock drawer. :roll:

Seriously that's quite a rip off.

 

[iinsic]

To be fair, the end links and bezel of the Tudor S&G are solid gold, and there is a considerable amount of gold on the crown and links. I've read that the total amount of gold by weight is more than on a five-digit two-tone Datejust.

The interview I read, which was with Tudor officials, stated the gold thickness on the various "gold" parts. The thickest layers were on the crown and bezel. The thinnest were on the links. There were no solid gold parts. Based on the thicknesses they quoted, I can tell you that the center links on my 16233 are way thicker.

 

[TaTaToothy]

The interview I read, which was with Tudor officials, stated the gold thickness on the various "gold" parts. The thickest layers were on the crown and bezel. The thinnest were on the links. There were no solid gold parts. Based on the thicknesses they quoted, I can tell you that the center links on my 16233 are way thicker.

Interesting. Do you have a link to that? Everything I've read states that the end links and bezel are solid. See, e.g., https://watchesbysjx.com/2017/03/ha...-tudor-diver-the-black-bay-sg-ref-79733n.html and https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/tudor-heritage-black-bay-steel-and-gold-introducing

Tudor has opted for what it calls "gold-capped" components, but what you might know this technique from the vintage watch world as "gold-fill." We could get into the gritty details of how this is done, but what you need to know is that the result is a thicker, more durable layer of gold. In the case of the crown, there's .6mm of gold, and in the case of the links there is .25mm of gold. Both the end links and the bezel are solid gold.

I don't own one of these watches (though I do own two other Tudors and two Omegas), so I don't really have a dog in the fight - just reposting what I have read.

 

[iinsic]

Interesting. Do you have a link to that? Everything I've read states that the end links and bezel are solid. See, e.g., https://watchesbysjx.com/2017/03/ha...-tudor-diver-the-black-bay-sg-ref-79733n.html and https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/tudor-heritage-black-bay-steel-and-gold-introducing

I don't own one of these watches (though I do own two other Tudors and two Omegas), so I don't really have a dog in the fight - just reposting what I have read.

The bezel they're referring to is the 1926, which practically would be almost as cheap to produce in solid gold as in gold-filled. It is quite light (even DJ bezels are not that substantial).

As for the endlinks, even Rolex two-tone endlinks are not "solid gold." Rather, a small gold part is fused to a much larger stainless part (the five-digit DJs did not even have that small amount of gold, so this technique - developed for the six-digit two-tone watches - is a definite improvement). Like the bezel, it would be easy for Rolex to duplicate this process in the Tudor, albeit with a lot less gold content.

And you really need to think about how thin ¼ mm of gold actually is. It's about the thickness of the letters in this post.

Omega took a lot of heat a few years back (including from me) because their two-tone links were not solid gold. Instead, they wrapped (and bonded) about a 2mm sheet of gold to a steel core. The Omega "gold" center links did indeed have a thickness roughly equivalent to the center links on a 16233 (which were hollow). There was more than enough gold for refinishing in future services. In fact, I've never heard of an Omega gold-wrapped center link wearing through after polishing.

The objection to Omega then was that they failed to point out that they were wrapping gold around a steel core, and not providing a solid-gold link (they obviously learned their lesson, because their current two-tone offerings have solid gold links). That is the same objection I now have to Tudor, which has similarly downplayed their miserliness. The difference is that one refinishing is going to remove almost all of that puny ¼ mm of gold, making a Tudor a much poorer investment than an older two-tone Omega.

A two-tone Tudor is now unmistakably a "poor man's Rolex."

 

[ChronoKing]

A couple of live shots from the model at the Omega boutique this weekend. Very beautiful watch but agree with many others here regarding the unreasonable price tag.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[imranbecks]

The mesh bracelet alone is a work of art. Totally unlike any other mesh bracelets out there..

 

[ChronoKing]

The mesh bracelet alone is a work of art. Totally unlike any other mesh bracelets out there..

Funny you say that. Aesthetically it’s very pleasing. In the pictures it’s so cool. In person and upon wearing, it’s rather stiff. I wish it was a bit softer and more pliable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[anonymousmoose]

A couple of live shots from the model at the Omega boutique this weekend. Very beautiful watch but agree with many others here regarding the unreasonable price tag.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That arrow symbol at 6 o'clock actually looks a bit annoying in real life photos.

 

[solesman]

A couple of live shots from the model at the Omega boutique this weekend. Very beautiful watch but agree with many others here regarding the unreasonable price tag.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks great without the HE valve ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iinsic]

In person and upon wearing, [the mesh bracelet is] rather stiff. I wish it was a bit softer and more pliable.

Perhaps if they hadn't made it of such a cheap grade of titanium? :think:

 

[iinsic]

In person and upon wearing, [the mesh bracelet is] rather stiff. I wish it was a bit softer and more pliable.

Perhaps if they hadn't made it of such a cheap grade of titanium? :think: