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.

Re: Super-luminova not as good as Tritium
In Response To: Super-luminova not as good as Tritium ()

I've got a year-old Seamaster Pro with the Super-luminova and it performs just like Derek says in the FAQs section. Mine is still glowing strong when the sun comes up in the morning. I had tritium on my last watch (a Rolex Sub) and I'd never go back to it again (I'm an insomniac, and check my watch several times each night). Is it possible you got a NOS watch? Pre-1998 (I think) would have the tritium hands and markers.

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