zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

: These two watches are, from the view of a Omega historian and
: collector, significantly different.

: In my opinion, Omega began its rise from its 1980s failure with the
: 1993 introduction of the 300M ChronoDiver, represented here by
: the 213.30. This watch was cited as Watch of the Year by a
: prominent German watch collectors magazine and no less of an
: authority than Chuck Maddox thought it was the best sports
: chronograph ever made. It is extraordinarily well designed and
: usable, and 15 years later is still one of the few chronographs
: you can use underwater worry free. The new long PIC designation
: and black dial is just a variation on a watch I own two of.

: The 1164, however, to some is merely a well repackaged ETA/Valjoux
: 7750. Many do not care for the non-symmetrical and very common
: 12-6-9 subdial layout. Some find the wave dial distracting.

: This watch showed Omega could do more than stick a ETA movement in
: a tired design and charge a premium price for it. It was a watch
: which showed great design in subtleties in its dial layout and
: great technology in pushers usable up to 300M underwater --
: without being screwdown. It has proven itself an extraordinarily
: durable and reliable watch.

: The 2594 design dates from the early 2000s. Omega has begun, by
: this time, the process of creating an in house movement and is
: moving upscale. This is not a tool watch the way the ChronoDiver
: was, and has always seemed more dressy and less purpose built.
: But, you will form your own impressions. I see this watch as a
: step on the way to where Omega is going today . . .

: Many prefer the more symmetrical "tricompax" dial layout
: of 2-6-9 subdials, and the date placement is both clever and
: useful. The 3301 movement is the more classic column wheel, and
: while not displayed here, is a beautiful thing. The pushers are
: also usable to 300M.

: But, the movement is the F. Piquet 33xx movements some have cited
: has being problem-ridden. Some state Omega has largely corrected
: the issue in current production. I tend to collect vintage
: watches, so I do not own one of these movements. I know owners
: who have had two with problems with both and owners with three
: that have had problems with none. Disparity of opinion . . . but
: none have cited 33xx watches as durable as the 1164.

: Lastly, I find the hands on the 2594 frequently block the subdials,
: while the skeleton hands on the 213.30 do not. The design
: compromise means the 2594 is probably more visible in darkness
: for time telling due to more luminous material being present.

: Hope this helps

Hewybaby,

Brilliant, thank you very much for your great, informative reply. From a personal point of view, I prefer 12-6-9 sub-dial arrangement and, given the choice, would opt for the proven, more reliable movement, i.e. the 1164. Finally, given that the 213 seems to be 25% cheaper than the 2594, my mind is now pretty much made up. However, I will still visit an AD and try one on first.

Thank you once again for your help
Neal

P.S. Interestingly, when I was looking for a watch, I saw the blue faced version and liked it - but not as much as the 2594. However, when I saw the new black dialled version - it was love, nay lust at first sight!