Great comparison of a true classic vs a future classic.. I have the Brosnan one and for me it’s more versatile than newer sporty one.. I even wore it to my own wedding day in a blue tuxedo.. keep the videos coming.. greeting from Ecuador in South America !
My father in law bought his Omega in the 1960s when $300 could buy an Omega or a Rolex. He was a successful doctor and could have purchased anything. He grew up poor and only bought quality, never status. After he died recently, I asked my wife if she knew where his Omega ended up. She didn't know but put 2+2 together - Omega and my fondness of 007 - and found me a 007 40th Seamaster. Way, way too much, and I'm not even a watch person, but wearing it reminds me of my wife and my late father in law.
For me, Omega of the 90s and early 00s is my favorite. That's probably because I grew up watching Brosnan as Bond. I just purchased the 2531.80.00 because of its delicious 90s look, simpler movement, value for money, and overall wearability. I can't imagine these will stay cheap in the coming years.
Hi, I purchased the 1993 auto Bond last year and it is the only watch that I wear on the original bracelet because it is so comfortable and the patina on the dial is second to none and the real thing. The newest release is technically way more advanced but it has lost its classic proportions compared to the 2533.80.
Calling the 2500 "just" a modified ETA 2892-A2 is a little unfair. Originally, the early 2531.80's had an 1109, which, truly was a 2892-A2, still with ETA stamp, with merely an Omega stamped rotor. A year or so in, they upgraded to the 1120, which is what actually falls into the "modified" ETA 2892-A2 category: The architecture is nearly identical, but Omega themselves manufactured it (complete with Omega stamp), added some jewels, and modified the rotor. The 2500, on the other hand, was quite different. Yes, it was still largely based on the ETA 2892-A2, and, yes, was still technically a modification of it... but they completely redesigned the entire escapement from the ground up; not just their own version, but a different tech entirely: the co-axial, which differs heavily from the standard Swiss Lever escapement at least as much as Rolex's Chronergy, if not more so. Now, I wouldn't classify the 2500 as a truly, fully in house movement. That honor, I believe, lies with Omega's 8000 series. But to call it a modified 2892 I feel buries just how much work went into it, and how revolutionary it really was. The 2500 truly was the beginning of what propelled Omega into a world class watch brand, comparable to Rolex, in terms of quality.
1503-825 bracelet is way better then the new one.The way clasp continues into the bracelet is a perfection. it's slimmer, spirtier, more rounded, classy. Only thing that is better is the exxtention. That is why I wear the new one on the rubber, but 2531.80 stays on 825. Even tried 825 on the new one...looks crazy, but wearable.
How is a company meant to make money and thus improve over time if people refuse to pay retail and want 40% off. It’s a luxury watch company not a discount charity. If you want it. Pay for it
Say what you will (better movement, overall better componentry, ceramic bezel and dial, etc.) but for me the original will always be The Bond watch. It also looks way better than the newer version, so subtly sophisticated and elegant. The new-and-improved model looks almost like a toy watch to me.
Caution is certainly warranted. But I’ve been buying and selling watches for 20 years now and have never been ripped off. How much are you looking to spend?
The newer one is not a Bond watch. There is no movie in which James Bond wears a blue wave SM with the 2018 redesign. He's never touched a blue ceramic bezel. The latest movies had him wearing a black SM with a completely different design and no waves on the dial. 2006 was the last time Bond wore a blue wave dial SM.
@@ThruMyLens100 that's a remake of the 2220.80 which Bond did wear. It would be fair to call it a Bond watch with that tight wave dial and aluminum bezel.
@@DadeMurphie - the point is, it was also never in a movie and Bond never wore it. There have been several Seamasters Omega promoted as “Bond watches.” Movie or no, the 300m is clearly the successor of the Seamaster Pro.
@@ThruMyLens100 no, I explicitly made the point that the 2220.80 was in a movie and that watch is a copy of the 2220.80. It would be more appropriate to drop the 60th as a true Bond watch than it would be to include the current gen as one if you feel the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
@@DadeMurphie - 300m is, aesthetically speaking far more similar than the watch you call a “copy” to a watch that has actually appeared in (several) Bond movies. And the bottom line is the 60th Anniversary was never in a movie. You’re being logically inconsistent. But thanks for playing.
@@ThruMyLens100 It's real lol. They don't make fake 1st gen seamasters anyway. I have 3 seamasters, including the 90s seamaster authenticated and serviced by Omega and it looks like that 1st gen.
@@Dochorahan We are kidding with each other. We're good friends and they are our watches. And they did used to make fake first gen Seamasters, with auto movements even.
