The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Feel free to discuss pricing and specific dealers. But 'for sale' postings, commercial solicitation and ads are not allowed. Full archive of all messages is accessible through options in the Search and Preferences features. Privacy, policies and administrivia are covered in the Terms of Use.
For the answer to the NUMBER #1 most frequently asked question here--for details or value of a specific older Omega watch you have--go to: Tell Me About My Omega. | Learn more about How To Include Photos and HTML In Your Postings. | To contact someone with a question not relevant to other readers of the forum, please click on their email address and contact them privately. |
My take here has consistently been that your watch should be capable of doing whatever you do, wherever you do it, however you do it. So there are those among us the participants here who will suggest you avoid external coatings on crystals if you are hard on them, that titanium has certain weight benefits, et cetera.
Most watches that are not "high-end mechanical" are quartz, so I guess I'd note that your watch will stop if you don't wear it, and that it not only won't be as accurate, but that that accuracy variance will change depending on the day and what you do. Mind you, we are talking about fractions of seconds in most case, and to me that makes the experience fascinating (altho I always demand my watch perform w/in Omega advertised specifications).
I own both the 2531.80 ("Bond") w/ the skelaton hands, and the 2254.50 -- which is my primary watch. I like the visibility of the latter, and think the Bond hands are aweful in terms of seeing them in certain (too many) lighting conditions. I prefer a simpler watch, and that's something you may want to thinka about if you have the watch on and off, meaning more often setting it (which takes about 90 seconds -- I've timed it, after hearing people complain about how inconvenient it can be! NOT).
Didn't know the 2054.50 was still available; but, if it is, the "Bond" bracelet on that is 2mm wider at the deployant clasp than on the 2254.50 -- and I feel the larger, uniform-length bracelet is more comfortable.
When others who may not be the night owl that I am weigh in, you'll get great AD recommendations. All I'd add to that is that you actually go in and try on and look at your options before you decide. And never, never, never, in my opinion, buy from a non-authorized dealer. As a matter of fact, for your first watch, I'd recommend "new" as it is worth the piece of mind, as well as the warranty.
Other than that, let me say that I'm looking forward to having you join our great club!
Link to my Omega Seamaster 2252.50 review: For a 21st Century Goldfinger
Link to my Omega Seamaster 2254.50 review: Should'a been Bond's Omega
Link to my Omega Seamaster 2255.80 review: "The Electric Blue"
Link to my Omega Seamaster 2531.80 review: Bond's second Omega
Link to my Omega Seamaster 2541.80 review: Actually-- Bond's first Omega
Link to my Omega Seamaster 2561.80 review: Mid-sized version of 2541.80
Chronocentric and zOwie site design and contents (c) Copyright 1998-2005, Derek Ziglar; Copyright 2005-2008, Jeffrey M. Stein. All rights reserved. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the terms of use. | CONTACT | TERMS OF USE | TRANSLATE |