Omega

Ruckdee
3337

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Combined response to your two posts above

You made a very accurate observation about one watch being of typical dull titanium appearance and the other almost stainless steel like shine. This difference will matter to you more once you own either watch and you are presented with the choices of watch to wear for the day or a certain occasion.

As for your questions, let's have a look at them one by one...


What do you think about what others have said of Omegas technology and movement.
My personal opinion is that the watch world is somewhat hyped and any suggestion of advancement or benefit should be downplayed in the buyer's mind.

The Liquidmetal is a very good example and even ceramic itself. Watches from years ago don't have these fancy materials yet they have withstood the test of time just fine. Plus their bezel was cheaper to replace.

For this POC, the use of Liquidmetal is limited to only the numerals you see on the bezel which is surrounded by the blue ceramic.

Now, if the entire watch case and bracelet are made of Liquidmetal, that would really interest me but again the price will be exorbitant for sure. They'll probably charge us more than a platinum watch if past watches are any indication. At least in that case the scratch resistance benefit will be put to really good use.



Let me show you my 12 years old Seamaster with simple aluminum bezel. You will see a few light scratches on the blue bezel in the zone from the first to the fifteenth minute. With the ceramic the chance of this happening is less. But this is already very acceptable to me because the watch was somewhat tortured during the first years of use. This is very reasonable.


Do you think they are correct by stating that it's way ahead of what is currently out there including JLC?
JLC is a traditional brand that is very much alive in terms of innovation. But their focus is sharper in other departments than utilitarian sports watches. You should study the mechanism of the Master Compressor line, see how they operate and what the benefits are.

The rather unique features Omega claims for the new 9300 movement are the combined hour and minute totalizer and the safety from accidental activation of the reset button when the chronograph is running and before it is stopped. The buttons on the POC are also claimed to be water resistant and operable while submerged. Not that we have to use it that way. They are just saying that you can. And now every brand can say that.

Omega Caliber 9300 may be an industrial advancement, a high performance product or anything you may call it. But its prestige will never match the level of refinement JLC is known for. So I think the "way ahead" part of your question is very difficult to comment on or respond to.


Do you think it's worth spending the extra cash for the liquid metal and full titanium?
You must be able to tell from the above response already that the Liquidmetal doesn't amaze me one bit. But in our case, the full titanium is worth paying for. Weight is a deciding factor for you. I don't think the SS POC will last long in your collection. You will soon get rid of it because of the weight.

Speaking as a fan of both brands, if you are going to have only one JLC in your life, I don't think the MC Diving Chronograph is representative enough of what the brand stands for. There is also no telling if the next version of the watch will look anything like it. Your sample can be the origin of a lasting and treasured collection like the Rolex Submariner. Or it can be a watch that doesn't fit in the overall image of that collection twenty years from now. Maybe I am over-analyzing but it doesn't hurt to think right? Just look at the constant change the IWC Aquatimer has been going through and you will get the picture. From the vintage with internal bezel to external bezel in the last decade to the internal bezel again a few years ago and external bezel again now. Only one of the later variations bears any resemblance to the original. Hmmm.....

What do you think?

Ruckdee