The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998.
Informational Websites ChronoMaddox -- the legacy of Chuck Maddox OnTheDash -- vintage Heuer website Zowie -- Omega information
Discussion Forums ChronoMaddox Forum Heuer Forum Omega Forum
Counterfeit Watchers ChronoTools Forum ChronoTrader Forum

zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Opened July 1999, zOwie is the Internet's first and longest running discussion forum dedicated to Omega brand watches.

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.

Mmm, had to pry that Sea-Dweller from my hand...
In Response To: Congrats!!! ()

: On a fine timepiece Dell!
: I would opt for the Sea Dweller, it's a little
: beefier.
: Either one works though, cause they both have
: NO
: cyclops!

If you remember any of my original Posts here regarding the 2254.50 decision, if I were making it sans Bond influence, it surely would have been that black, black Seamaster w/ so readily readable hands and dial - as opposed to the current 2531.80 holder of authentic Bond pedigree.

So I faced that again once I got final confirmation of the Rolex 14060M Submariner as the true Connery-Bond watch. Dalton wore the Sub-date, not the Sea-Dweller, so I couldn't even make that late-stage connect. So, as with the 2531.80 Seamaster, I was pretty clear that I wanted to start out w/ the Bond line in Rolex before anything else.

But I looked hard at the Sea-Dweller. And I also came across an interesting 007 argument in my research that justified his expensive time pieces thus. Anywhere in the world, if he got into trouble, his Rolex was immediately convertable to cash for any emergency. Sort of a neat concept, when you think about it: A watch inherently serving as both timepiece and "gadget" - w/out any Q-modification!

It wasn't just the date feature (still getting used to not having that, strangely enough!), but the "over-engineering" appeal. As the Rolex AD said, "no, you won't survive to that depth, but the guy who finds your dead body will still have a great watch."

LOL

In the end, the no-date one because it comes in on what would have been my Papa's 102nd birthday this year. As I've shared w/ a number of folks on this Forum one-on-one, this grandfather was the one who got me started in love of watches, giving me the Elgin that had kept him on time all the years he worked in a manufacturing shop in the 50s and 60s. No date. As a matter of fact, an interesting parallel to the non-COSC status of my new 14060M: His watch gained 5 minutes a week.

When I traveled for long periods both domestic and internationally, I never missed a flight home at the end of 2- to 3-week assignments (I just got there earlier and earlier!).

Traditional elegance.

And, lest Sam be worried: No plans to treat it any more gently than my 2254.50 Omega issue.

Current Position
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