bring back their BOR

They need to update the whole thing, especially the hands. back to 2254.50 hands would be awesome.

People. Why should they. Those hands and the bracelet are Part of the design. So is the helium escape valve. You want a different watch. Buy something else then:)

I mean it’s shiny…

Yes just a millimetre or two would be perfect

@@Alexander-xq1gr agreed 😁

Helium value, bezel action, thickness, bracelet, date…the 300 needs a refresh.

😢​@@Alexander-xq1gr

Hahaha the Tudor is the caricature of the sub! It's a blatant copycat hahaha. What are u smoking! Hahaha.... Don't give me the bs they Belong to the same company... Bec all others don't do copy paste like Tudor!😂😂😂 Jlc doesn't look anything like Cartier or ALS., omega doesn't look anything like Blancpain or breguet ... Tudor is a shameless cheap copy of Rolex period!😂

Yep, the “wart” on the side of the Omega and the faux rivets on the Tudor make both way less desirable. However, the 5 link bracelet option on the Tudor makes for a very nice watch.

@@tonyhalpin1320 hi. I totally agree, the new Tudor jubilee bracelet is a game changer. Probably why I got an uncle seiko jubilee bracelet for my Tudor gmt, and their nato strap for my panda chrono. Regards from Northern Ireland ☘️

I'll never understand how a open case back is that big a deal especially on a dive watch that kinda looks wrong

@@lonewolfemcquade8133it’s nice to see and appreciate a mechanical movement. I love having the display case back on my SMP, my BB I never look at the back as I have no reason to. I like being able to see a mechanical movement and on the SMP it doesn’t look wrong at all, it’s like a porthole into its heart and the movement is fairly well finished.

@@silvershadowjshlook at the Tudor 925. The movement is nothing special honestly it looks boring. Good thing they keep the case back.

Scratch magnet!? Suuuure 🤣

​@@SB-Kiwiall watches get scratches

@@jackm1310 noooo. Really??

The double AR coating works a treat and mine has never scratched, I wear it all the time. I have a burgundy BB, it is a great runner but it is nowhere near the quality of the omega. All those advantages that you stated about the SMP are correct and make it easily better than the BB. The only thing the BB wins is the bezel (although it feels cheaper and more flimsy) and the crown. That’s all. The AR coating isn’t as good. Also, when you wind the watch it takes a while for it to kick in, the Omega is instant. I’m uncertain about the technical reasons for that and if there is one (my Zenith also has a delay) but it’s annoying from a user perspective. I also miss having a date window on the BB but do appreciate the clean look and not having to set the date when I set the time. But my SMP feels so much better in absolutely every way imaginable.

So true. I have a BB58 went first for the Seamaster but found the bracelet so heavy and uncomfortable. Its a real shame because the watch is beautiful.

@@michaelriera6277 I’m thinking of going from the BB58 to a seamaster.. do you think it’s too much of a size difference?

The ceramic seamaster is ugly imo, the classic fine wave dial version is where its at (imo)

Just get a 2254.50 Seamaster to get a better bracelet, thinner watch, and lume for days.

Yeah some of the comments seem to be hating on the wave dial. It’s really nicely executed and subtle and I love it, brings a whole feel to the watch. As you’ve said, the BB dial is boring in comparison and has no personality. I own these watches, the Omega wins on every level, which is why it really would be better pitched against a Submariner.

Excellent point

Wow 5 Seamasters! You are a fan.

@@michaelriera6277 5 Omega, not all Seamasters lol

That would be subjective.....The bracelet on the seamaster SUCKS.

@hittingreens5646 That is also subjective. Many like the Diver 300M bracelet.

If you dont like blingy watches then the seamaster is worse

I have both I like the seamaster better but the tudor is more comfortable to wear

Hype didn't do anything for Tudor. 3 yrs the paid KZfaqrs hyped and puffed Tudor... you'd get the impression they're number 2 overall! But nope! It's been dropping since... it's now at number 17 ...wayyy down there. Longines, Tudor's competitor is running circles around it. Morgan Stanley figures.

Thanks for viewing and continue enjoying yours!

delusional

I would agree the omega is better than the Rolex, but everyone is brainwashed when it comes to Rolex. I have had numerous Omegas ,Rolex,longines,Tudor. The only brand I own at the minute is omega . I owned a Pepsi gmt and explorer 1 and 2 and sold all 3 to stick with omega

Nope I owned a Seamaster and still own two Rolex Submariners and at least Rolex are 100p Swiss made. Unlike Omega that uses parts from China. The Swatch group has been outsourcing from China for years. Every thing was better on the Submariners, accuracy bracelet and bezel action. The bezel action on the Seamaster was horrible. Also the rotor on the Submariner's are silent and silky smooth.

That’s one way to justify never getting the call 😂

I have owned the BB, the 300M, and the Submariner. The Tudor and the Omega are long gone. I can get a Seamaster and the BB heavily discounted at any time.

👎

Agreed, dive watches were designed to be tools not distracting shiny jewellery pieces, but to each their own!

Perfect response. Agreed!

Agreed, but the BB41 with the 5-link bracelet

Both is always the right answer!

I saw it at a Tudor AD in NJ with the 5 link and it totally elevates the look of the watch.

Omega sucks. Ugly

Only in the BB range in other ranges they are far more unique and adventurous than Rolex has been in the last few decades at least.

That is why I don’t have a Tudor, well said

Agree, but I wouldn't classify ceramic bezel and date function as better.

@@bogarbill6331 Yah, I balked a bit at mentioning the date and though imo I'd prefer a ceramic bezel on the Tudor, it's more of an aesthetic issue in the end

Hahaha winner on what? Hahahahahah ha ha I mean don't be a joke hahahha

Wow, your comment added so much to the discussion. Thank you.

@@impoautosguatemala9847 Where's the lie in the list? Is it "heritage"? Should have I given Omega a win for "heritage"? lol

Oméga better bracelet ??? 🤡🤡🤡

@@maitrehg Omega bracelets are far better than anything Tudor produces. As someone who wears an Omega everyday and has tried on the newest Tudor watches recently I can assure you of this. Tudor has improved somewhat but they are not in the same tier as Omega. The fake rivets on the Black Bay range are laughable by the way. By all means make up your own mind but I don’t agree with your opinion

@@ianwoollard2063 It's a well-known fact that bracelets are the major weak point of Omega watches. These bracelets made in China lack a lot of refinement. Pure crap. On the opposite, Tudor and Rolex bracelets are known to be the best of the best. Pure perfection.

Well call me crazy but I got a Longines zulu time cause omega gmts don't look that good 😅. Personally aquaterras and planet oceans aren't my thing. The taichi one does look good but not as stunning as the longines imo. Also picked that over a breitling and tudor.

Longines is a class below tudor. Longines are great, no disrespect, but for some reason it's still below tudor, maybe because rolex carries them.

Frankly I think that’s generous. Longines has heritage and design that put it well above Tudor in everything except price

@@adecentgamer3154yeah that Zulu is 🔥. Tudor has nothing even approaching the style and beauty of that watch. And Omega has never really had a definitive GMT - just never been a featured complication for them. But likewise Longines can’t compete with Omega in the chrono or dive space

@@MarkDanger777but your contradicting yourself in your own comment- Longines is an old guard heritage brand with a history twice that of even Rolex-they are not a cheap-copy version of their bigger brother like Tudor

Omega bracelets are an absolute joke. I assume at Omega they wear Rolex, because I can't explain this ignorance any other way. Can't wear my Seamaster on the ugly uncomfortable steel bracelet.

If they could only get those things right because it is a nice looking watch.

That’s like saying VW copies Audi…

PO comparison coming....

Ceramic is less suited to daily due to risk of cracking

@@jackm1310but less prone to scratches. It’s like saying a mineral crystal is superior to sapphire.

300 is too distracting for some environments, too much of a look at me watch imo

💯 Some MBA decided they could save a little money buying the same size segments. Terrible.

Could not agree more. It’s thick, heavy, and unrefined. Really lets the watch down.

Except for bracelet and bezel action

@@jackm1310the bezel on the BB has better grip but feels a lot cheaper. Which makes sense as the SMP has 120 clicks compared to 60. I like the BB bracelet and do find it comfortable but the finishing on the Omega bracelet is better and I feels more premium. I’m not sure on the hate with it but my SMP is a rubber strap so haven’t worn the bracelet extensively. The SMP bracelet also has a diver extension. I do prefer the grip on my BB’s crown though. But the watch feels so much cheaper (which it is).

There is nothing refined about that lump of steel. its such in the 90s.

So is the submariner surely

Really ??? I don't thing so. Goofy designs are rarely timeless.

Definitely not. Goofy crap. Everything on that Omega is wrong. The hideous 90’s bracelet, waves on the dial and the ugly “fat” font on the bezel. Cherry on top is the tit nipple and those ugly skeleton hands against the waves… need to look carefully to see the time…. Just a hideous design overall, I could never and will never get the hype and why one would want to own something this goofy, and simply ugly. NOT timeless at all.

Unfortunately we don't carry Longines. Agree, they are a great comparison.

If we carried Longines we certainly would.

I would get the tudor even if the seamaster was the same price, the ceramic 300m was a step backwards in a lot of ways

I have both, the Omega is far better, not a bit better. It makes the Tudor feel cheap which, in comparison, it is.

Of course, we'd be happy to ship and work with you! Email brad@brentlmiller.com.

The omega is not 7-8k, it’s 5.6k, you’re way off. Also, you do know that low end brands have ceramic bezels, they aren’t expensive to produce.

@mema4922 OK, forgive me, I wasn't absolutely sure how much the omega cost. it's a beauty. I don't doubt you on the cost to produce ceramic bezels either, I know that Tudor does have matt ceramic bezels on their blue pelagos and obviously their bb ceramic But as I said, Tudor watches for the money great value

@@marlonr391 I see what you’re saying, I’d prefer ceramic too. However, I guess the aluminium bezel is a stylistic choice as it will patina over time enhancing the Tudors vintage look.

My Submariner 14060m bezel looks great and it's over 21 years old. I really don't know what you do to your bezels that you " Have to have ceramic ". At least aluminum bezels age nicely. Unlike with ceramic every thing ages but the bezel looks brand new. It just doesn't look right. I rather the watch age as a whole

@lonewolfemcquade8133 I totally agree in regards to aluminium inserts, I first noticed when I looked at images of aluminium inserts from the 60's-70s of Rolex watches and the inserts look great for the age of the watch, the way some people talk, like its going to be battered within 4yrs. I own the 58 blue I brought it new in 2020 it looks like new, no concerns at all.

You meant the hour hand.

@@seabiscuit726142 oops, yes

Not true.

It’s similar to every other dive watch that’s copied them

If the Ferrari were made of plastic

So true, the bezel action is the main thing wrong with this watch and a dealbreaker for me

Everything on that Omega is wrong. The hideous 90’s bracelet, waves on the dial and the ugly “fat” font on the bezel. Chuck in some red just to make it more goofy. Ugh. Cherry on top is the tit nipple and those ugly skeleton hands against the waves… need to look carefully to see the time. Just a hideous design, I could never and will never get the hype and why one would own it. Hideous at best