Discussion
ArmisT's original post delves into the enduring question of whether Omega's survival and success were inextricably linked to its NASA association, particularly with the Speedmaster. This discussion explores the brand's intrinsic quality versus the undeniable impact of its 'Moonwatch' legacy. ArmisT prompts collectors to consider Omega's broader horological contributions beyond its iconic space-faring chronograph.
So, it lasted ā8 years without NASA's assistance.
Aside from the Speedmaster, as Iāve learned from recent posts here, Omega has a remarkable history including other amazing lines like the Seamaster. So I appreciate your comment/reminder that highlights Omega was more than holding its own before being chosen by NASA.
That before Biver the NASA story was not nearly as prominently pushed. It definitely has an effect amongst collectors but not so sure if the majority of the buyers care about the story just as much š¤·š»āāļø Still, from a marketing perspective itās expertly milked šš»
Seamasters, manual chronometers, some sublimissime 33.3, and of the course the Railmaster, with out forgetting some military pieces.
I would make the point that their ārelationshipā with NASA exists because Omega beat out the competition which included Rolexā¦not on price but quality and function. So it can be said that they have been known as a company that produces fine watches and NASA is a reflection of that fact. I think itās born out in the Seamaster line as well (Ploprof Ultradeep etc) so I would have to wholeheartedly disagree with that comment.
The hour hand on this ck2998 isnāt bad, but the minutes hand is too thin. It is so thin that the tiny sliver of luminescent material is useless, and in the dark you can only see the hour hand. The standard speedmasterās straight hands are much more legible. More legible still are the broad arrow hands.
This thread is active on the Omega forum with 34 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.
Join the Discussion →
