The real reason for the SS shortage: No real competition in the SS market

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I'm talking about the Seamaster 300, not the SMP. Omega really needs to straighten out its naming system.

So, the ONLY possible explanation I can rationalize is that Omega is pricing the 300 higher because it's a cash grab at nostalgia. That gimmicky faux-aged luminova must be expensive

[Paul_I]

Originally Posted by MTBer

So, the ONLY possible explanation I can rationalize is that Omega is pricing the 300 higher because it's a cash grab at nostalgia. That gimmicky faux-aged luminova must be expensive

I believe that was also a Bond watch which they may factor in.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by Paul_I

I believe that was also a Bond watch which they may factor in.

Have you seen the Craig movies? At this point half their men's line is a 'Bond watch'

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by MTBer

It uses the 8400 caliber, which is the no-date version of the 8500, an older design usurped by the newer movements. It's a Master Co-axial meaning 15,000 Gauss rating, but not a Master Chronometer so it's not METAS certified- it's a lesser movement than what's in the 300M dive watch.

Not exactly. The 8500 base is still the flagship. The only difference between it and the 8900 used in the Planet Ocean (and the Globemaster, among others) is the 8900 is METAS certified, whereas the 8500 isn't. Omega did not actually make any physical alterations to the movement when they changed the reference number; the newer reference is reflective only of the certification and testing process. Both the 8500 and 8900 use twin barrels, a silicon hairspring, have 39 jewels and 60-hour power reserve.

The Diver 300M actually does use a lesser movement, the 8806, even though it's newer and METAS certified. The 8806 has a single barrel, a silicon hairspring, 35 jewels, and 55 hour power reserve. Omega developed it to use in the 300M as a way of making it in-house (all prior 300M models were ETA-based), but keeping it on a deliberately lower pricing tier than the PO and Seamaster 300.

Originally Posted by MTBer

I honestly have no idea why it's $6600, so my argument here is that it's a relative anomaly when comparing Omega and Rolex on a watch-by-watch basis.

But you're also overlooking the Planet Ocean, which retails at $6500. It includes a date function, Liquidmetal bezel scale, 8900 movement, and is METAS certified. The Seamaster 300 also has a Liquidmetal bezel scale, but the Diver uses enamel printing.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by MTBer

So, the ONLY possible explanation I can rationalize is that Omega is pricing the 300 higher because it's a cash grab at nostalgia. That gimmicky faux-aged luminova must be expensive

That lume is the thing I liked least about the model. If it had regular white lume, I'd probably still have it.

[mangoseed]

Originally Posted by Paul_I

That watch has been discontinued, but still available in many ADs. It was discontinued by the new management. I'm looking for the article I read on the topic, but the story is that Georges Kern felt that it did not fit in with the new image he is trying to build.

I agree with you - not a fan of this one either.

Edit:

Found the quote:

All of the timepieces will range in retail price from $3,000 to $9,000, and the brand will no longer feature quartz models (not counting the handful of “instruments for professionals,” such as the iconic Emergency). “We don’t want to move upwards because other brands are much more qualified to do annual calendars,” Kern said. “Our field is chronographs—this is credibility. But we don’t want to go below, because this cheapens the brand.”

https://www.luxurysociety.com/en/art...ransformation/

But it is still on the Breitling (UK) website

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

..The 300M actually does use a lesser movement, the 8806, even though it's newer and METAS certified. The 8806 has a single barrel, 35 jewels, and 55 hour power reserve. Omega developed it to use in the 300M as a way of making it in-house (all prior 300M models were ETA-based), but keeping it on a deliberately lower pricing tier than the PO and Seamaster 300.

I had to look up the watch on Omega's site, but it appears the 300M is using an 8800. Single spring barrel is arguably technically inferior, but the added complexity of two spring barrels for a measly five extra hours seems more an exercise in technicality at the expense of reliability and serviceability, but that said I want dual barrels if I buy one because they're cool to look at, thickness be damed

Also, it looks like the 8800 and its derivatives are quickset date, whereas the 8900 and others are jumping hour. Obviously a non-issue on the 300, but I would personally prefer the quickset date since it's not even a GMT.

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

But you're also overlooking the Planet Ocean, which retails at $6500. It includes a date function, Liquidmetal bezel scale, 8900 movement, and is METAS certified. The Seamaster 300 also has a Liquidmetal bezel scale, but the Diver uses enamel printing.

Planet Ocean is tougher to compare because Rolex doesn't have a watch like it. You get 300M, 1220M, or 3900M.

[Paul_I]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

But it is still on the Breitling (UK) website

Yes and on US as well, just as some discontinued Rolex watches stay on the website after they are discontinued to aid ADs in selling NOS.

[Paul_I]

Originally Posted by MTBer

Have you seen the Craig movies? At this point half their men's line is a 'Bond watch'

Only Casino Royale which I thought was good.

[mangoseed]

Originally Posted by Paul_I

To clarify and hopefully avoid a lot of back and forth. Georges Kern took the reigns at Breitling in Sep 2018 - anything prior to that was not what we are referring to as the 'current management'.

All of the timepieces will range in retail price from $3,000 to $9,000, and the brand will no longer feature quartz models (not counting the handful of “instruments for professionals,” such as the iconic Emergency). “We don’t want to move upwards because other brands are much more qualified to do annual calendars,” Kern said. “Our field is chronographs—this is credibility. But we don’t want to go below, because this cheapens the brand.”

https://www.luxurysociety.com/en/art...ransformation/

He took over in 2017: https://www.robbreport.com.sg/interv...ure-sky-racer/

So I guess he was responsible for they Navitimer 8, but as you said he did discontinue the Skyracer.

[Paul_I]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

He took over in 2017: https://www.robbreport.com.sg/interv...ure-sky-racer/

So I guess he was responsible for they Navitimer 8, but as you said he did discontinue the Skyracer.

Yes, that sounds correct, I recalled when they were purchased but was relying on the previous source for when Kern was specifically announced.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by Paul_I

Only Casino Royale which I thought was good.

Favorite Craig film and favorite Bond film of all time, and I grew up in the Brosnan era

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by MTBer

I had to look up the watch on Omega's site, but it appears the 300M is using an 8800. ...

Also, it looks like the 8800 and its derivatives are quickset date, whereas the 8900 and others are jumping hour. Obviously a non-issue on the 300, but I would personally prefer the quickset date since it's not even a GMT.

Watchbase shows the Diver 300M as having the 8806, which they say uses the 8800 as a base, without explaining the difference. As you note, Omega themselves say it's an 8800. Go figure. I'll defer to Omega and stand corrected.

One thing I did just notice, and have to correct: while the 43.5mm PO has the 8900, the 39.5mm version has the 8800. The two models came out the same year, so the difference would appear to be an issue of size, rather than generational transition. Watchbase lists both the 8900 and 8800 as having a 29mm diameter, but they don't list thickness. Presumably the single-barrel 8800 is thinner. Then again, the Globemaster also uses the 8900, and it's a 39mm watch, so I really don't know Omega's rationale here.

Also worth noting, while the Seamaster 300 has the 8400, the Seamaster 300 Trilogy Edition has the 8800.

Good call on the quick-set date versus jumping hour hand. I missed that. On a no-date like the Seamaster 300, the jumping hour hand is a much nicer feature. On a date watch, it comes down to personal preference. A jumping hour hand is a great feature for traveling, even if the watch doesn't have a GMT function. But for non-travelers, it's probably less desirable than a quick-set date.

Seamaster 300 Trilogy Edition, introduced in 2017. MSRP = $7000

Originally Posted by MTBer

Planet Ocean is tougher to compare because Rolex doesn't have a watch like it. You get 300M, 1220M, or 3900M.

True. I was just pointing out the Omega has multiple pricing tiers, and that the Seamaster 300 wasn't necessarily an anomaly. It is their highest-tier diver, though, listing at $100 more than the PO, despite lacking a date and METAS certification. (The Trilogy Edition lists for an additional $400 more.) I don't know what explains that, but I do know when it came out in 2014, it was viewed as Omega's most obvious attempt to-date to compete head-on with Rolex in the diver category. That's why I consider it a better comparison to Rolex in terms of pricing differences.

[Paul_I]

Originally Posted by MTBer

Favorite Craig film and favorite Bond film of all time, and I grew up in the Brosnan era

I thought it was very good but my favorite bond is Sir Roger Moore.

[101031-28]

Originally Posted by AK797

Nothing has changed in the last 5 years, only thing that has is Brexit, and that has made all the difference in the world, literally.

Rolex and Patek have always been by far the most desired brands in their fields, and Brexit just amplified and multiplied that a thousand fold.

100%

[NavalFlight]

Originally Posted by Paul_I

Yes, that sounds correct, I recalled when they were purchased but was relying on the previous source for when Kern was specifically announced.

Incorrect. As I stated above, while the Navitimer 8 came out after Kern took over, its development predates Kern.

[Paul_I]

Originally Posted by NavalFlight

Incorrect. As I stated above, while the Navitimer 8 came out after Kern took over, its development predates Kern.

Wasn't referring to that at all in my post, also I believe you are splitting hairs. I've also just read several articles that attribute the Navitimer 8 design to the vision of Georges Kern.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

True. I was just pointing out the Omega has multiple pricing tiers, and that the Seamaster 300 wasn't necessarily an anomaly. It is their highest-tier diver, though, listing at $100 more than the PO, despite lacking a date and METAS certification. (The Trilogy Edition lists for an additional $400 more.) I don't know what explains that, but I do know when it came out in 2014, it was viewed as Omega's most obvious attempt to-date to compete head-on with Rolex in the diver category. That's why I consider it a better comparison to Rolex in terms of pricing differences.

Personally, I consider the 300M an overall technically superior watch to the 300 in spite of the 300's twin spring barrels to the 300M's single one. The 300M diver has always been a relatively entry-level watch with respect to Omegas pricing structure, and by my guess an entry point for many into the brand as the classic "Bond watch"...it was for me anyway. I believe Omega knew they couldn't take one of their most visible pieces and double the price during a redesign, so they chose the 300 as something they could use to up their prestige by pricing it closer to Rolex territory.

Nothing else makes sense to me as to why it's so much more expensive at MSRP than the 300M. Now if you look at grey market pricing, things start to add up.

And I love the thin bezel retro look of the Trilogy model Shame it uses the faux-tina lume.

[Talbel]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

a sample set of 1 is most likely a fluke. Plenty of one off Rolex purchasers who would have the same story. Because its their only one they would think the QC is exceedingly bad.

By almost all accounts GS is on an entirely different level than Rolex as far as finishing and details.

Well said

[Wristwatcherboy]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

He took over in 2017: https://www.robbreport.com.sg/interv...ure-sky-racer/

So I guess he was responsible for they Navitimer 8, but as you said he did discontinue the Skyracer.

Mr Mangoseed, as has been pointed out by myself and others, the “piece of turd” you were referring to was introduced before Georges Kern’s tenure began, and one of his first acts of CEO was to discontinue and remove many references, the skyracer included. Yes, it is still on both the UK and US website but they are discontinued, not in production and not available to buy from a Breitling Boutique (other AD’s may be selling through remaining inventory...). So like I said originally, the new management discontinued this watch along with many others, despite it being a relatively “new” model.

The Navitimer 8 was the first big release under Kerns direction employing Breitlings new simplified vintage design language. Whether it had started to be designed before he took over or not is anyone’s guess, regardless it is the first watch which points at Breitlings new design language and ethos and vintage inspired references under the new management.

[mangoseed]

Originally Posted by Wristwatcherboy

Mr Mangoseed, as has been pointed out by myself and others, the “piece of turd” you were referring to was introduced before Georges Kern’s tenure began, and one of his first acts of CEO was to discontinue and remove many references, the skyracer included. Yes, it is still on both the UK and US website but they are discontinued, not in production and not available to buy from a Breitling Boutique (other AD’s may be selling through remaining inventory...). So like I said originally, the new management discontinued this watch along with many others, despite it being a relatively “new” model.

The Navitimer 8 was the first big release under Kerns direction employing Breitlings new simplified vintage design language. Whether it had started to be designed before he took over or not is anyone’s guess, regardless it is the first watch which points at Breitlings new design language and ethos and vintage inspired references under the new management.

If he did discontinue the Skyracer then it was a good decision, but I cannot defend the Navitimer 8 or the removal of the Beautiful gold winged logo on the real Navitimer

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

It's too bad most of what scratches my Breitling itch is long out of production, although the two new Chronomats last year leave me optimistic the classic "Windrider" look might yet get a new lease on life.

This is my most recent get, straight out of one of Breitling's golden periods. It won't bump my Sub from preferred-daily status, but it's great for variety. It's also something you don't see every day.

You're 100% right on Breitling and this reference.

The early to mid 2000 was the best era for them...

Surprisingly enough, the Colt Skyracer isn't total junk like people think it is...
it's actually pretty cool. It's tough, light and accurate.

The rest of Breitlings current lineup is not so great...but I'll get into that later.

[gchee]

I think they got the name right. Imagine they named it something else other than Rolex (ie Rolly, Bolex, Colex) Would it still be what it is today?

Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk

[Paul_I]

Originally Posted by gchee

I think they got the name right. Imagine they named it something else other than Rolex (ie Rolly, Bolex, Colex) Would it still be what it is today?

Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk

[Fleetlord]

I'm afraid I have to agree with the OP post about the current state of the watch industry...other than Rolex, AP and Patek.

Brands are just lost...adrift in a murky mix of marketing confusion, design indecision, and overproduction..

It is so bad in fact that I think the success of Rolex will cull weaker brands similar to the quartz crisis of the 1970's. The gap in the brands is that great that the dominance of Rolex, combined with emergence "smart" watches and the overall softening of the watch industry will put them under.

Omega is probably the best adjusted at the moment as they keep their Speedy Pro consistent and issue some relevant LE versions now that people actually want.

The rest of the Speedy lineup is unneeded. DSOTM and the rest. Just waiting to be blown out at 40% off.

The Seamaster lineup is a mess. Too many models..and they keep changing the design every year. Some are vintage looking , some are modern. Some are this, some are that...Too many!

The other Omega references nobody cares about at all, so they aren't worth mentioning.

And folks....Omega is the BEST of the sad lot pumping out watches right now.

IWC? They put out a few LE watches that people liked and some of the SIHH pilots look ok, but again...too many models. Plus they are making bronze pilot watches? Bronze? That's so 2010 and should be for dive watches. That is just being totally out of touch with the market.

Panerai? Oh boy...where to start. The Due? All the crazy material for Submersibles that have huge retails? Not what the market wants guys (unless you are RM)....They claim the Due is, but that is just alienating Paneristis as it is basically a Michael Kors edition of a Luminor. Just nasty stuff.

Breitling. Wow they are in rough shape. When you go to the boutique and they admit that business stinks because they don't have a model that anybody wants, that is really bad. They must make 2000 versions of the Navitimer, which is just poison. Who can even figure out what they want? Forget it, I'll just get a Rolex.

Hublot? Not even worth discussing. I think they going to wind up going out of business. Just my opinion, but whatever mojo they had, that is long gone.

So, this a broken record. i could list other brands and it's the same tune. Poor design and overproduction combined with lazy marketing leaves them out on the street for Rolex to steamroll...

[Montremoi]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

I'm afraid I have to agree with the OP post about the current state of the watch industry...other than Rolex, AP and Patek.

Tudor has been on a roll since its revival. But I don't know if you count the brand as separate from Rolex.

[tbjerm]

I agree. Rolex makes the best SS sports watch, no question. Others out there (e.g. JLC dive alarm, Blancpain, Breguet Marine) are niche.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

The Seamaster lineup is a mess. Too many models..and they keep changing the design every year. Some are vintage looking , some are modern. Some are this, some are that...Too many!

The other Omega references nobody cares about at all, so they aren't worth mentioning.

Exactly. It's clear in their marketing that Omega is trying to capture the fashion crowd, especially given their involvement with the Gerber family. At least with Rolex, they select brand ambassadors who've actually accomplished something other than looking pretty.

Part of me thinks Omega keeps redesigning their lines trying to see what sticks, because despite some very impressive technological improvements, they're still behind Rolex. I bought my Datejust instead of an Aqua Terra because it takes a true watch fan to really notice the difference at a glance between a new one, and one that's 10, 20, even 30 years old. Who knows what the Aqua Terra will look like 5 years from now, let alone a couple decades if it still exists. Perpetual redesign works for the fashion industry, but not for competing with Rolex where timeless design is valued.

[tbjerm]

Originally Posted by MTBer

Exactly. It's clear in their marketing that Omega is trying to capture the fashion crowd, especially given their involvement with the Gerber family. At least with Rolex, they select brand ambassadors who've actually accomplished something other than looking pretty.

Part of me thinks Omega keeps redesigning their lines trying to see what sticks, because despite some very impressive technological improvements, they're still behind Rolex. I bought my Datejust instead of an Aqua Terra because it takes a true watch fan to really notice the difference at a glance between a new one, and one that's 10, 20, even 30 years old. Who knows what the Aqua Terra will look like 5 years from now, let alone a couple decades if it still exists. Perpetual redesign works for the fashion industry, but not for competing with Rolex where timeless design is valued.

I wonder what patina will develop on a rubber bezel insert from a 40 year old PO. Fashion-wise, might match the soles of some vintage Brooks.

I agree with you. Omega will throw everything at the wall, see what sticks-- what stands out. Then, decades later, incorporate those aspects into a new version, with a "limited edition" spinoff. However, regarding technological improvements, I wouldn't necessarily say that they're behind Rolex.

[904VT]

A few reasons. Asia, and China more specifically and their regulatory changes. Second, many watch brands for lack of a better term are junk. Not advocating by any means that a watch should be an investment, but when you buy from boutique and next month have a watch worth 60% of the the msrp, what's the point to be quite honest.