Search results

Yes!!! That would be very cool, Maria! And make that watch even more of its own thing and more different from the DSSD.

Yeah, 2 for every minute, which you magically position right... Or count with the tactile tip of your fingers.

Tritium is about as radioactive as you are, that is "a very very little bit" but sure enough that bit does exist. And it was/is a great step forward as it replaced radium or promethium which are "health-threateningly" radioactive.

Actually, after a much closer look... only sets 1 and 6 do really match the size of the dial. All others are "a bit too small" to my eyes.

I voted for version 1 but version 6 would be perfectly OK. I could also live with 5 and 3; Actually version 6 is really growing on me and the added surface will sure improve the lume.

Yet distortion can be a very pleasant view, as long as its not tooo pronounced. So maybe there's a possibility to cut down costs in getting a more domed crystal? I suspect a lot of people will prefer a larger dome (as long as the watch doesn't become mega-thick) more distortion and a smaller...

Not very likely, methinks. The "superdome" like that on the A1 are a bit cumbersome, but add that the what needs to be a thick case already, and you'll get a massive super bulky anchor of a watch! Maria was speaking of slightly domed crystal I think. It should give nice reflection, a little bit...

Personally I find the hands to be VERY important. Way way more than the number written on the dial, or any sort of "literature", name or logo... It's the visual identity of the watch and since I'm not diving to more than 60-65m anyway, even the technical performance is clearly less important...

Totally agree. No need for a B or a T or whatever. Saying it's got Tritium was sort of important at the time because that meant the luminous material was not a radioactive compound like radium or promethium 147. It's the Royal Navy and Omega's equivalent of the famous "no rad" logo on the...

I feel more comfortable with this than the second set you proposed, Maria, while they still retain the same "vintage Tuna" styling (which is quite attractive and works fine on a big deep diver). What I've done is shorten a bit the counterweight on the minutes hand and broaden a bit the lower (or...

I really hate most of the newly proposed hands, except may the modern stencil type that is on the scorpionfish. But they're really bland looking on this watch, and I fear they'll look too small. The first proposed set was really nice, though. And a few changes to the newly proposed version...

Still very unbalanced and full of "bad empty". If you really don't want to underlying pips for accurate timing, at least have the numbers align with the minute indicators so that it doesn't look too clumsy. The original was much more balanced (not perfect from a usability perspective as around...

Hey Maria, good work! I really love the idea of lumed chapter ring. Not so sure about those new hands. I feel like the hours hand becomes to thin when approaching the centre while the minutes hand might be a bit to wide (well, it doesn't bother me nearly as much as the hours hand. The night view...

Sorry for the derailment of the topic. I'm not Chinese but I have more than a few Chinese friends and seeing their culture called "silly superstition" and our culture "objective and above that" sorts of irritates me. Add to that the poor understanding of the nature of numbers that transpires in...

Well I do agree with you, wanting the best possible watch has nothing to do with superstition, and all to do with facts. The number written on it as water resistance, therefore is not relevant, as what we want is the best watch, not the "best number" (how can we even begin to define that...

Isn't wanting to have 4000m or whatever the highest possible thing rating is on the watch as much superstition as not wanting to have a 4xxx? I mean, I'm in no way Chinese so to me it's really all the same. BUT.... I'm a mathematician and 4000 is in no way a number that's more special than 4001...

Yeah. But that's 2m less than Rolex, why settle for less when we could claim more (even if it's all very very arbitrary and their DSSD might well be actually designed for depth larger than those of the Seafarer II)

Well, very sorry that you've understood my post this way. It was absolutely not intended to be condescending or anything, just playful and a tad ironic. I totally prefer the slightly mysterious 3989m and all the stories that go with it, but really understand the more "mainstream" approaches and...

Well, superstition regarding watches is a bit of crucial point. Ever noticed that classic watches in Roman numerals user IIII (which is not even a real number) instead of IV? The ratings giving 100, 200 or all other, aren't they pure convention?? Aren't they just as precise as 3989m? It's all...

That sounds about perfect... Except the "underscore" for the numbers in the bezel. It looks a bit odd the way it is, but only because there is the marking point at say 30 but not the 29 nor the 31. Include small "dots" (well squared dots) in line so that there's a white index at every minute...