Omega Seamaster 300m

scott1974

Hi,


Can someone tell me the major difference between :
42mm Seamaster (https://www.beaverbrooks.co.uk/0113852/Omega-Seamaster-Diver-300-Master-Chronometer-Automatic-Mens-Watch/p) and the
41mm Seamaster (https://www.beaverbrooks.co.uk/0001570/Omega-Seamaster-Diver-300M-Chronometer-Mens-Watch/p), apart from the price difference?


I presume it's the movement? Excuse my ignorance....

Lorddrakul

No idea.
Intrigued.

unkel

scott1974 wrote: »

Can someone tell me the major difference between

The date is in a different spot

The more expensive one has the waves and different second markers. Also the more expensive one says "master chronometer", perhaps a higher standard of movement by COSC specification?

The cheaper one doesn't have "automatic" in the title, perhaps it's a quartz?

Time

Other than the obvious differences in dials and size, the more expensive model is anti-magnetic and has a glass case back so you can see the movement. It also has the newer 8800 movement which has a better power reserve. They're the only differences i can tell buy somebody else might be able to point out more.

njburke

I spent a bit of time looking for a quartz 300 M seamaster. I was looking on a Japanese proxy service I've been using for Seikos and Casio's. I was outbid at 900 euro more than once but not by much more.They do turn up the there regularly with the box and links.

Nonoperational

Wave dial is the newer model. New movement, display back and different dial and date position.

They also upgraded the crowns on the newer one. They're thicker/bulkier) and supposedly easier to use (although I never heard complaints about the previous model in this regard.

Visually, the bezel insert on the new one has different font and seems heftier as well. I think I prefer the last model. The new style seems to smother the dial to my eyes.

For my part I prefer the waves on the dial. But I don't really like display backs on a divers watch. Just seems not to fit with the purpose of the watch. Omega always did a great caseback on the 300m Seamaster and on the older Planet Oceans. Really nice etching and what not. I'd probably go back to the 2541.80 quartz to get the waves, and because it's an amazing high accuracy quartz piece. A great all round watch. It would set you back a lot less but you'd need to be sure about where you buy it from.

unkel

Mine's the classic 2531.80.00 "James Bond" automatic 41mm like this:



Not quite sure what year it is, anyone any thoughts?

Funny thing is I read all the Bond books back in the day. The level of detail / subtlety is just so far superior in a book. When Pierce Brosnan showed off his Seamaster in the film, I was upset it wasn't a Rolex, even though I had no affinity with either brand at the time

btkm8unsl0w5r4

I had a ceramic non wave seamaster 300 and the dial is absolutely fab in the light - why did I sell that watch for 60 cents on the euro...miss it.

unkel

The one you sold recently? Yes that was glorious watch alright. You got pretty good money for it though. These do depreciate a good bit from new to a few years old.

Sawyer High Sunup

Sawyer High Sunup wrote: »

I had a ceramic non wave seamaster 300 and the dial is absolutely fab in the light - why did I sell that watch for 60 cents on the euro...miss it.

Those are certainly a very nice watch and I can well see why anyone would buy one.



I have to admit I was very ambiguous about the ceramic dial myself. It's a stunner visually no doubt but I always felt they had lost the seamaster 300m 'feel' when they brought it out. There was something a bit...soulless about it? (Just my subjective opinion).


I wouldn't doubt yourself on it. We all look into our hearts a bit when we decide to let a good one go and if at the end of the day you can bear to hand the watch over/put it in the post, especially given the hit you almost inevitably take on the sale, you have your answer.

oxocube

I like the ceramic dials on my watches. I've two Steinharts with cermanic dails which I wear a lot. Both get dings off doors and other things and still don't have a mark on them.

I understand the souless part, I just like the practicality of ceramic for not picking up dings

Marcusm

unkel wrote: »

Mine's the classic 2531.80.00 "James Bond" automatic 41mm like this:



Not quite sure what year it is, anyone any thoughts?

Funny thing is I read all the Bond books back in the day. The level of detail / subtlety is just so far superior in a book. When Pierce Brosnan showed off his Seamaster in the film, I was upset it wasn't a Rolex, even though I had no affinity with either brand at the time

I think it first featured in Goldeneye which was 1995 or 1996. I didn’t associate it with Bond so much but I bought one in 1998 or 1999. I was so naive that I paid list price. The only watch I haven’t got something back on. I did insist they add a link for which they had to butcher another watch. I got it serviced 3 years ago and bizarrely I fon’t Think i’ve Worn it since as it’s in the red travel case it cane back in. Shame on me.

I should say I paid £1,080 in Selfridges (lives in London then).

2shea

unkel wrote: »

The one you sold recently? Yes that was glorious watch alright. You got pretty good money for it though. These do depreciate a good bit from new to a few years old.

The non wave diall are going for about €2700 new from AD's in the UK .

That's a not a bad price, they should always be worth around 2000-1500 used.

oxocube

2shea wrote: »

The non wave diall are going for about €2700 new from AD's in the UK .

That's a not a bad price, they should always be worth around 2000-1500 used.

Where can you get one for €1500 - €2000? I've never seen them that cheap?

2shea

oxocube wrote: »

Where can you get one for €1500 - €2000? I've never seen them that cheap?

No I'm saying they should always be worth €1500-€2000 10 or 15 years down the line.

2shea

oxocube wrote: »

Where can you get one for €1500 - €2000? I've never seen them that cheap?

Have you been looking for a while? What's the cheapest you have seen a new non-wave?