ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Mickey® · 6 August 2012, 01:23 AM

Just wondering....

http://www.omegawatches.com/gents/sp...32592437901001

Anexate · 6 August 2012, 01:32 AM

Nope; a very unattractive watch; to be kind.
The year before the release of this watch-wonder the CEO gave interviews about such a big heap of money (in reserves), that they don't now where to invest it.

Maybe a classical watch would be a nice idea, since DeVille and Hour Vision have such a peculiar shape that they don't sell that well (many Italian watch shops don't even keep a single model to show).

Mickey® · 6 August 2012, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anexate

Nope; a very unattractive watch; to be kind.
The year before the release of this watch-wonder the CEO gave interviews about such a big heap of money (in reserves), that they don't now where to invest it.

Maybe a classical watch would be a nice idea, since DeVille and Hour Vision have such a peculiar shape that they don't sell that well (many Italian watch shops don't even keep a single model to show).

Don't get me wrong I don't like it's looks either....

joe100 · 6 August 2012, 12:26 PM

It's neat nut it's waaay too large

Silvio Mosiello · 6 August 2012, 12:38 PM

Seems like a watch this cat should wear....

Transient · 6 August 2012, 04:56 PM

actually I don't mind it, reminds me of the x-33, weird but cool at the same time...

azguy · 7 August 2012, 12:05 AM

Not for me

Kringkily · 7 August 2012, 01:07 AM

the x-33 actually looks like a watch while the z-33 looks something out of this world...this is just my opinion... Cool watch but I guess a little tooo futuristic..maybe in 20 years we will all look back and laugh at our thoughts here lol

airchitect · 7 August 2012, 01:47 AM

Eeeeewwwwwww. My wife would punch me in the face if I spent money on that. But really, its just not attractive. :-)

MYK · 7 August 2012, 03:39 AM

I actually .. kind of .. like it .. a bit :|

mrbill2mrbill2 · 7 August 2012, 07:57 AM

It needs more pushers.

Not for me.

cheers:

T.S.Eliot · 7 August 2012, 08:16 AM

Reminds me of the Rado Daystar

Omega is one of those things i've been trying to understand for some time now.

10:10:31 28 · 7 August 2012, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kringkily

the x-33 actually looks like a watch while the z-33 looks something out of this world...this is just my opinion... Cool watch but I guess a little tooo futuristic..maybe in 20 years we will all look back and laugh at our thoughts here lol

If only they put the movement in an X-33 style case...

esm · 7 August 2012, 08:50 AM

I like it. Need to see it in person first....

Kelly's · 7 August 2012, 09:09 AM

Put one on. Wasn't as large feeling as you would think. Maybe a larger face on it would help it out. Too much like my X-33 overall to justify the $5k.

And they offer a leather strap???

rodrob59 · 7 August 2012, 11:29 AM

I can't understand what Omega was thinking with watch. So many beautiful models...and this.

Passionata · 7 August 2012, 04:15 PM

No way ,ugly

capote · 7 August 2012, 08:58 PM

I'm not gonna buy it but its different at least.

mannyv11 · 7 August 2012, 11:56 PM

Reminds me of a casio G-shock a little bit. Not really a fan of this watch at all

Ditch · 8 August 2012, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silvio Mosiello

Seems like a watch this cat should wear....

Or this chap:

Not my cup of tea.

Ebruner · 8 August 2012, 05:29 AM

This watch is exactly why I am NOT a fan of Omega.

-Eddie

Dweller of the Sea · 8 August 2012, 07:10 AM

I like it.
I like the old Flightmaster design reborn.
It would never be my only watch, more like a "fun" watch.

However the retail price does that I will never buy one.
If a used one will sell for around 1500$, I will probably buy one

psv · 8 August 2012, 07:15 AM

I checked one out at the Omega boutique. It is certainly unique, and ugly, but cool in sort of way.

I know it is a space/flight watch and all, but there is no way I'm buying a digital professional tool like this that is only waterproof to 30m. I would have expected that it would be properly sealed and chock-proof to reach 100m at least. This is the same water resistant rating as a Patek Philippe dress watch.

itchy243mhz · 11 January 2015, 03:08 PM

Looks like a Zodiac from the 70s

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

asadtiger · 11 January 2015, 10:47 PM

I also thought that it's terrible till I saw it in person...granted it won't be my only watch,but I would love to add one as a sporty watch...honestly,looks attractive in real like.

xjeeunitx · 12 January 2015, 01:55 AM

Horrid design, IMO.

mallam3 · 27 January 2015, 05:39 AM

Worst watch I've ever seen

Nathaniel Rothschild · 16 January 2017, 02:18 AM

This watch has the same design and case of the Flightmaster that Omega made back in 1969-1970. I personally love the styling of this watch. I think that it's really nice looking with a modern look with the new Flightmaster design to it. I didn't know that it was only water resistant to 30 meters. It would've been nice for Omega to make it water resistant to at least 100 meters. Also, the current $4,000 to $4,500 price tag is too much for a quartz battery operated watch. The module that's inside the watch probably doesn't cost anymore than $200 dollars tops if that to manufacture. I wouldn't spend anymore than $1,200 for this watch brand new. And even that's too much. These Swiss made Omega and Rolex watches are too overpriced. You are not buying anything more than the name.

I just spent $125 and bought myself 3 Pulsar PZ4011X1 analog-digital watches to have as everyday beater watches. The Pulsar that I purchased looks exactly just like the Omega Flightmaster which costs thousands more. My Pulsar has the same exact case design and features on it that the $4,000-$4,500 Flightmaster has and it's also water resistant to 100 meters. I would like to buy the new Flightmaster, but I think that spending $4,000 to $4,500 for it is a waste of money when I can own the same exact watch from Pulsar for $125.

JacksonStone · 16 January 2017, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Rothschild

These Swiss made Omega and Rolex watches are too overpriced. You are not buying anything more than the name.

That's certainly a fair perspective, and one a number of people have. I'm just not sure why any of them would want to hang out in a Rolex or Omega web forum.

Nathaniel Rothschild · 17 January 2017, 03:31 AM

It's because I own 2 Rolexes that were purchased back in 1989 and 1995 when the prices were more reasonable than they are today. I own a Submariner with the date and a Tudor Daytona chronograph which is a pre-Tiger one.

Also, I will need to get both of my watches serviced and need to figure out which Rolex service center location would be the best place to send the watches to. I've read here that the Rolex Service center in NYC is not good anymore because lots of people have received their watches back with dings and scratches on them.

6 August 2012, 01:23 AM	#1
Mickey® Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: Mickey® Location: Atlanta, GA Watch: Swiss Made Posts: 5,801	Did anyone get one of these yet? Just wondering.... http://www.omegawatches.com/gents/sp...32592437901001

6 August 2012, 12:26 PM	#4
joe100 2025 TitaniumYM Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Joe Location: New Mexico Watch: Explorer Posts: 12,847	It's neat nut it's waaay too large __________________ It's Espresso, not Expresso. Coffee is not a train in Italy. -TRF Member 2705-

6 August 2012, 12:38 PM	#5
Silvio Mosiello "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: Matthew Location: Miami/NY Watch: the shoes. Posts: 3,482	Seems like a watch this cat should wear.... Attached Images

7 August 2012, 03:39 AM	#10
MYK 2025 TitaniumYM Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Real Name: Mohammed Location: Kuwait Posts: 1,647	I actually .. kind of .. like it .. a bit :\| __________________ ♛ 126300-0020 ♛ 126610LV-0002 ♛ 126710BLRO-0001 \| Tudor M25707B-0001 \| PP 5212A-001 \| AP 15510ST.OO.1320ST.10 Ω 310.30.42.50.04.001 \| Konstantin Chaykin Joker Classic \| Kollokium Projekt 01 - E2 \| Horage Revolution 3 MicroReg \| SEVENFRIDAY \|

7 August 2012, 07:57 AM	#11
mrbill2mrbill2 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Mr. Bill Location: South Florida Watch: 16610 Posts: 6,148	It needs more pushers. Not for me. cheers: __________________ Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of the Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons - ID # 13

6 August 2012, 01:32 AM	#2
Anexate Banned Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 56	Nope; a very unattractive watch; to be kind. The year before the release of this watch-wonder the CEO gave interviews about such a big heap of money (in reserves), that they don't now where to invest it. Maybe a classical watch would be a nice idea, since DeVille and Hour Vision have such a peculiar shape that they don't sell that well (many Italian watch shops don't even keep a single model to show).

6 August 2012, 04:56 PM	#6
Transient "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Real Name: Rob Location: Sydney, Australia Watch: Rolex & Omega Posts: 697	actually I don't mind it, reminds me of the x-33, weird but cool at the same time...

7 August 2012, 12:05 AM	#7
azguy Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: ------- Location: ------- Watch: --------- Posts: 12,609	Not for me

7 August 2012, 01:07 AM	#8
Kringkily "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: George Location: New York Watch: Speedmaster, Rolex Posts: 3,082	the x-33 actually looks like a watch while the z-33 looks something out of this world...this is just my opinion... Cool watch but I guess a little tooo futuristic..maybe in 20 years we will all look back and laugh at our thoughts here lol

7 August 2012, 01:47 AM	#9
airchitect "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: KY Watch: A few..... Posts: 3,796	Eeeeewwwwwww. My wife would punch me in the face if I spent money on that. But really, its just not attractive. :-)

7 August 2012, 08:16 AM	#12
T.S.Eliot "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: K Location: KSA Watch: aholic Posts: 1,499	Reminds me of the Rado Daystar Omega is one of those things i've been trying to understand for some time now. __________________ "Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead, / Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep seas swell / And the profit and loss. / A current under sea / Picked his bones in whispers. / As he rose and fell / He passed the stages of his age and youth / Entering the whirlpool. / Gentile or Jew / O you who turn the wheel and look to windward, / Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you." Cheers, K

7 August 2012, 08:50 AM	#14
esm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Eric Location: Location,Location Watch: this, bro... Posts: 15,340	I like it. Need to see it in person first....

7 August 2012, 09:09 AM	#15
Kelly's "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 26	Put one on. Wasn't as large feeling as you would think. Maybe a larger face on it would help it out. Too much like my X-33 overall to justify the $5k. And they offer a leather strap???

7 August 2012, 11:29 AM	#16
rodrob59 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Real Name: Rod Location: Atlanta, GA Watch: YG DD 18238 Posts: 1,540	I can't understand what Omega was thinking with watch. So many beautiful models...and this. __________________ I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. -Franklin D. Roosevelt

7 August 2012, 04:15 PM	#17
Passionata "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: N/A Watch: the girls Posts: 7,095	No way ,ugly __________________ Best George "Also remember that feet don't get fat and a watch will always speak volumes." Robert Johnston --------------------- newhttps://youtu.be/EljAF-uddhE new http://youtu.be/ZmpLoO1Q8eQ IG @passionata1

7 August 2012, 08:58 PM	#18
capote "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Daniel Location: Sweden Watch: 16570 Posts: 7,315	I'm not gonna buy it but its different at least.

7 August 2012, 11:56 PM	#19
mannyv11 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Real Name: Manny Location: MA Watch: DD,Sub,GMT,Daytona Posts: 4,541	Reminds me of a casio G-shock a little bit. Not really a fan of this watch at all

8 August 2012, 05:29 AM	#21
Ebruner "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Eddie Location: Kentucky Watch: 118208 Posts: 2,510	This watch is exactly why I am NOT a fan of Omega. -Eddie __________________

8 August 2012, 07:10 AM	#22
Dweller of the Sea "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: EU Watch: ing TRF Posts: 576	I like it. I like the old Flightmaster design reborn. It would never be my only watch, more like a "fun" watch. However the retail price does that I will never buy one. If a used one will sell for around 1500$, I will probably buy one

8 August 2012, 07:15 AM	#23
psv "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: USA & France Posts: 11,077	I checked one out at the Omega boutique. It is certainly unique, and ugly, but cool in sort of way. I know it is a space/flight watch and all, but there is no way I'm buying a digital professional tool like this that is only waterproof to 30m. I would have expected that it would be properly sealed and chock-proof to reach 100m at least. This is the same water resistant rating as a Patek Philippe dress watch.

11 January 2015, 03:08 PM	#24
itchy243mhz "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Larry Location: Southern Maryland Watch: 14060M, 116613LB Posts: 389	Looks like a Zodiac from the 70s Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk __________________ Lug Hole Commando

11 January 2015, 10:47 PM	#25
asadtiger "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Asad A. Awan Location: kabul, Afghanista Watch: Tissot PRX Posts: 2,698	I also thought that it's terrible till I saw it in person...granted it won't be my only watch,but I would love to add one as a sporty watch...honestly,looks attractive in real like.

12 January 2015, 01:55 AM	#26
xjeeunitx 2025 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 5,650	Horrid design, IMO.

27 January 2015, 05:39 AM	#27
mallam3 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Newcastle, UK Posts: 4	Worst watch I've ever seen

16 January 2017, 02:18 AM	#28
Nathaniel Rothschild "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2017 Location: Trump Towers Posts: 2	This watch has the same design and case of the Flightmaster that Omega made back in 1969-1970. I personally love the styling of this watch. I think that it's really nice looking with a modern look with the new Flightmaster design to it. I didn't know that it was only water resistant to 30 meters. It would've been nice for Omega to make it water resistant to at least 100 meters. Also, the current $4,000 to $4,500 price tag is too much for a quartz battery operated watch. The module that's inside the watch probably doesn't cost anymore than $200 dollars tops if that to manufacture. I wouldn't spend anymore than $1,200 for this watch brand new. And even that's too much. These Swiss made Omega and Rolex watches are too overpriced. You are not buying anything more than the name. I just spent $125 and bought myself 3 Pulsar PZ4011X1 analog-digital watches to have as everyday beater watches. The Pulsar that I purchased looks exactly just like the Omega Flightmaster which costs thousands more. My Pulsar has the same exact case design and features on it that the $4,000-$4,500 Flightmaster has and it's also water resistant to 100 meters. I would like to buy the new Flightmaster, but I think that spending $4,000 to $4,500 for it is a waste of money when I can own the same exact watch from Pulsar for $125.

17 January 2017, 03:31 AM	#30
Nathaniel Rothschild "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2017 Location: Trump Towers Posts: 2	It's because I own 2 Rolexes that were purchased back in 1989 and 1995 when the prices were more reasonable than they are today. I own a Submariner with the date and a Tudor Daytona chronograph which is a pre-Tiger one. Also, I will need to get both of my watches serviced and need to figure out which Rolex service center location would be the best place to send the watches to. I've read here that the Rolex Service center in NYC is not good anymore because lots of people have received their watches back with dings and scratches on them.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)