zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

: I have always found the use of 316L to be a bit
: puzzling.

Probably comes down to cost, availability and machinability. As I recall, the watch cases are machined out of a solid block, so the cost of maintenance working on easier-to-work-with metals is a plus (especially for tooling). It's easier to finish less wear resistant metals as well, so it would definitely cost less than something that would better resist scratches.

: where strength and
: wear resistance are needed, then Type 304
: (18-8) is typically used.

Looks like 304 would be less prone to wear than 316, but it is not as resistant to corrosion, etc. Don't underestimate the harsh conditions of our own bodies and neglect on a watch. When was the last time everyone washed/wiped off their watches after exposing it to sweat and heat? I remember changing my watch band on my DW-5600 G-Shock for the very first time in 13 years. There are two areas on the 304 stainless case back that are covered by the band making it hard to clean (I've never cleaned the watch at all). Taking the watch bands off, I could clearly see the pitting caused by corrosion in exactly those areas under the bands.

I'm sure some thought has been put into the choice of metal to use. I sometimes don't get the comparison between the Rolex and Omega bracelet wear. The Rolex finish on their band is nowhere near as complicated as that on the Omega Seamaster (especially the Bond watch with sections of mirror polish vs brushed). This makes it easier to observe scratches on the Bond bracelet than on the Sub (just by virtue of the Bond bracelet attracting more attention and more scrutiny). The Omega bracelet cross section is also rounded, so the highest area will exhibit the most wear. The Omega clasp is also about 740 square millimeters of blank canvas for scratches to be noticed, while the Sub's clasp is stamped to look like the rest of the bracelet.

tk