zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

The things I keep coming back to are the (wonderful) dialogues I've had w/ so many of you here. A standard Omega 2531.80 "Bond" Seamaster does not "become" a Limited Edition 2537.80 because you change out the bracelet clasp, dial, and caseback. We label that "Franken" and say it's a bad thing. Could the average Chronocentric participant tell the difference? Well, the more informed probably could. Yet we stay on it, for -- whom?

I've had lengthy, detailed eMail exchanges w/ Speedy owners who will spend literally hours focused on tracking down the [u]true[/u] first watch on the moon. Couldn't have been Armstrong's, because it was left in the LEM to replace another brand that failed to do its job (a point they [i]love[/i] to emphasize, and never seem to miss an opportunity to point out - and I wouldn't either, if I was a moon watch guy). So, what as Buzz Aldrin wearing? Oops, his watch was stolen. [i]Et cetera[/i]. Then it's on to the caliber 321 movement, because it's the movement that counts, in terms of being "space qualified," as opposed to the case and hands, et cetera. But is the 861 an appropriately close enough successor to the 321 to be considered "moon," and even then, it was released to late to have actually gone, unless an advanced version was released, but we can't be sure of that....

And how on earth can Omega claim the current caliber 1861 movement watches to be "moon," because that surely didn't go!

Omega is a "comma" brand: That's the short answer to your question.

If I'm wearing a Rolex, I say, "I'm wearing a Rolex," and people react, knowingly. Rolex bought that through disciplined advertising, my field, more than any technical movement. It built it's reputation step by step. So it has earned the "Rolex, ah-ha!" place it now holds.

Our brand is "Omega-comma," meaning that in order to place it in folks' minds, we say, "This is an Omega - comma - James Bond watch." Or, "This is an Omega - comma - moon watch." Or, "Omega, like the Olympic such-and-so person wears." We can't just say "Omega" as meaningfully as Rolex owners can say "Rolex." And if this advertising issue is not addressed, we never will be able to.

Compromise the "comma" and you compromise the brand.

I'll confess to you that this whole DeVille thing has got me thinking a lot more about the approach that Rolex has taken to Bond in the past. You've heard me ask for reference here. I've wondered if the current Submariner 14060M is a true successor to the 5513 from (continued feedback welcome on this via my eMail or here, by the way). And you know what? First: No one cares. To have a Rolex is sufficient, and no one cares if it's "true" Bond or "near" Bond.

But it matters a lot w/ Omega watches, where we are constantly defending ETA movements by trying to hold our listener's attention long enough to say it's not the same as the ETA in a Tissot for a thousand dollars less, because if you'll just let me show you this and thus under a lupe, you'll see....

Taken in the context of all these things I've listed above, and countless others, it becomes another "Oh, is that what Omega is claiming now? Just gimme a Rolex, and hold all the footnotes."

It's easy to say that "we" know. And the Post I place here earlier from the guy who holds anyone in contempt who buys a watch for more than 15 bucks is not uncommon. Not on the Bond sites, let me tell you. Maybe it's just about throwing our money away on needless luxury items, and what we're really talking about is a "degree" of being a fool, among an axiomatic certainty that we are fools to begin with -- buying mechanicals when quartz watches are more accurate, paying for less rugged performance than a Casio G-Shock. Dell Deaton can take a pretty picture of his Omega Seamaster 2254.50 in the snow, but it's the Ball Watch you want if you're going to the summit of Mt. Everest.

If I've lost anyone because "who cares what people think, I like the watch," let me assure you that I realize this is a real stretch for those who'd much rather focus on the technical marvels we wear on our wrists. But if you disagree w/ what I'm writing, what I want to say in humility and as someone deeply honored to be your peer here -- please think of this as my failing as a communicator. But try to stay open to the concept.

People may not be running out to by the DeVille 4832.51.31 because it's on the Omega site. But let me tell you what they are doing: They are avoiding the current Bond models. Prices on the 2531.80 and 2541.80 are dropping in a way I haven't seen since I've been watching them over the last few years. Is it tied to the "doubt" created by Omega SA in implying a "new" Bond watch to hold out for?

As someone who knows PR, I'm gonna tell you that it has.

On average, the Bond 2537.80 Limited Edition Seamaster isn't moving the way it used to; and when it does, it's not getting what you could have bought it new for in 2002.

So, as the credibility of the brand goes, so goes the value of your asset. And, as that all goes, so go the income to Omega SA that's so necessary to bringing out new product designs, and taking the mechanical stuff inside to the next level.

To your point, rkammer, is there confusion between Pierce Brosnan and James Bond among Omega promotions? Yup. As a matter of fact, when I got my COSC for my last 2531.80 ("Bond"), the Pierce Brosnan photos that came w/ it were of him wearing anything but the 2531.80 Seamaster! Does that mean that Omega benefitted from the confusion? Yup. And it ripples through the marketplace: Search on "Bond Omega Seamaster" on eBay and tell me how many 2254.50s come up, how many everythings other than the 2531.80 and 2541.80s come up. Bond carries 'em all. And that's really convenient, isn't it, to have folks wearing 2254.50s thinking they have a Bond watch when that's all that's in stock.

No lost sale there.

Where does it end? I've seen the CTI 5ATM look-alike to the 2531.80 Seamaster, and it's darn close at a glance. Certainly if you don't actually touch it, feel weight, et cetera. So, let's let 'em call it a Bond, too. Heck, for that matter, it's actually closer to authentic in looks than either of the other two that Omega lists as "Bond" on its site.

Where do you draw the line?

I am saying you draw it here.

Because, to put a finer point on what I said above, "truth in advertising" doesn't just cover product association. Once that seal is compromised, all sorts of other things can be represented as true, even if they're not really as close as something that one of you cares about thinks it should be.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Respectfully,
Dell Deaton

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 2541.80 review: Actually-- Bond's first Omega
Link to my Omega Seamaster 2561.80 review: Mid-sized version of 2541.80