Omega

Pistol Pete
44

• Show profile
• Show other posts

your criticisms are way way overstated

Let me respond in the order you wrote.

1) The first criticism relating to size fails to hit the mark in a number of ways. Most importantly, the iconic speedmaster, i.e. the moon watch, is unchanged and is still at the traditional size of 42mm. Your remark about trending in the opposite direction is misguided too. Omega will never decrease the size of the classic moon watch either. The speedmaster professional is a classic, meaning it will not change. You complain about 44.25mm and yet you went ahead and bought an even bigger 45 PO when, lol, a 42mm version was available. I think your criticism about size is confused and is confusing and misses the mark entirely. Personally, I can't see your point either because I enjoy wearing my 40mm Daytona as much as I do my 44mm Aqua Terra.

The classic moon watch is its own category within the speedmaster range, as indeed is the broad arrow. You know, they are different models. To criticise one model against the other is plainly mistaken because the 'beehive' broadarrow sits just fine within the broad arrow category, just as the moon watch sits in the different category of professional. In summary, you failed to compare like for like and have confused apples with oranges. The broad arrow is meant for a different demographic. It's meant for people with a contemporary taste in larger watches. This is entirely legitimate. However, and this is the important point, that in no way affects the classic speedmaster professional. It changes absolutely nothing. Because of this, it also reduces your criticisms to absolute nothing as well. Speaking more strictly, your argument is both redundant and unnecessary.

2) The 8500/8520/8601 is available in a lot of different watches, for example, in the mighty Proplof, the versatile Aqua Terra and that wonder of wonders, the Hour Vision. Omega haven't forgotten about the ladies either and have given them the absolutely stunning cal 8521 with Si 14 spring. It's obvious that the enormous effort Omega put in for the ladies is entirely lost on you. Together, this already amounts to a reasonable range of watches. You are also assuming too much as well because not everyone can afford those watches for themselves let alone an additional one for their partner (Lol, I exclude myself from this!). I also question the personal value of this criticism with respect to yourself. What is it to you anyway if Omega doesn't put an 8500 in everything because you'll not get an 8500 Omega regardless. These 8500 watches will most certainly, I fear, be beyond that affordabilty thresh hold that you so fondly speak of. I think this will be even more true of the 9300 that will rock the horological world next year. Never mind, there is always something affordable for you from, say, fossil.

3) Geneva waves are not busy, it's as simple as that. I also can't see what's problematic about combining that with the 'beehive' subdials. It's different alright and kind of interesting in many ways. You fail to notice that the design is meant to display a bold character set in strong relief.  In this, the design is entirely successful. The design is not confusing because one can clearly see the time, the date, all the hands, and subdials. All the minute and hour markers are clearly set out. What's even worse for your criticism is that the design is the classic tri compax layout. Tri compax is a classic and logical layout that's used by the moon watch and Daytona, the two all time classic sport chronographs. The other advantage of the tri compax layout is the CLARITY of the design which precisely avoids any chance of confusion. There is just nothing to your claim that the design is confused except its shallowness.  However, your next claim about the design being contradictory is obviously plainly confused. It's like saying that a square contradicts a circle. Does a dog contradict a cat? A male, a female? Does a wave pattern contradict a honeycomb pattern? NO! NO! NO! 

4) God only knows what you mean by not being a fan of the broad arrow hour and minute markers!!!!!!! What is wrong with them. Can anyone else tell me? Lol, is this one of your 'contradictions'? It might well be. Whatever you were trying to say, it's best put aside and forgotten about. You can save that one for a rainy day.

Well, the moon watch was never broken in the first place and so never needed fixing either. It has remained unchanged. This simple fact  makes everyone of your criticisms pointless. The broad arrow is a different watch, intented for a different demographic. You have overlooked the fact that not everyone wants a classic moon watch and yet they may still want a speedmaster, one that is more contemporary looking and horologically up to date. You know, just like the broad arrow you were looking at!!!!!!

Finally the broad arrow design was the first and original column wheel speedmaster. Lol, how can the broad arrow be a 'mess' when it is in fact the original classic speedmaster. That is what you're arguing about aren't you? It's the original 60yr old design. You ask how can it have that appellation. Well that's what it actually was!!!!!!

Site Info.