
SJX initiates a discussion on the Omega Speedmaster Broadarrow 1957 in rose gold and steel, questioning how far the Speedmaster line has evolved from its utilitarian roots. This post invites collectors to consider the aesthetic and philosophical shifts in a beloved icon, prompting a lively debate on heritage versus modern interpretation.














A brown dial is always beautiful... I saw one with the SS case ( a Traditionnal Speed ), and the combo was beautiful. When the brown dial is supposed to recall the radium dials of some vintage watches, I agree. When it is used to " surf " on the fashion, I'm less ok. Omega did it, Panerai launched the " Brown Fashion" in 1997 with the Pam 21, and 2 years later, with the 36... On this Spped you showin your pics, I have mixed feelings...A tool watch? Not anymore.... Nice, yes, but where is the spi
The Broadarrow in rose gold and steel is hardly a tool watch. That being said, my favourite Speedmaster is not the original Moonwatch - which for some reason I never liked despite owning several - but the Broadarrow in steel with blue hands and markers like this: Somehow the colour combination and design just works IMHO. - SJX This message has been edited by SJX on 2008-06-01 05:41:22
. . . of a watch that has evolved for half a century . . . this automatic version retains much of the heritage of the original, but not nearly enough to be a direct lineal descendant. The automatic movement with date function along with the constantly running seconds hand sans numerals shifts this model away from the direct line of descent, but fortunately there's a limited edition brown dial Speedmaster that can be considered "pure" . . . [photo taken from Omega's website] . . . cordially, Art
But didn't know it was a LE! Nice piece, indeed! Best. Nicolas
but not a nice Speedmaster IHMO. I prefer vintage chocolate ;-)
. . . my understanding is that it's going to be of 'limited production', and there's no way of knowing when the production run will end. I used the term 'limited edition' loosely, as that implies a numbering scheme, which isn't the case here. Thanks for catching my inadvertent error . . . ;-) . . . cordially, Art
This thread is active on the Omega forum with 18 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.
Join the Discussion →