TimeFlies 5: Omega Seamaster Diver 300M
With humble beginnings in a small workshop in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland in 1848, Omega would rise to become the leader of the watch world in the early to mid 20th century. The Seamaster was released in 1948 to commemorate the brand’s hundredth anniversary. The original Seamaster was intended to be a rugged watch that could handle anything thrown its way. Although this watch would eventually become the dive watch we know and love today, it did not have some of the features associated with dive watches today, such as a rotating bezel or waterproof bracelet (back then, divers wore leather straps on dive watches).
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe40a9d24-e257-4101-9eb2-b3165ebcba2d_600x470.heic)
In 1957, Omega released a trio of watches in its Professional line. While watches today are luxuries that are far removed from their original use cases, back then, watches were functional tools. The Speedmaster featured a useful chronograph, while the Seamaster took the form of a more modern dive watch, and the Railmaster would keep accurate time, even in the face of strong magnetic forces. While the Seamaster would evolve over the years into the modern Diver 300M, Omega still makes Heritage Seamaster models that bear a great resemblance to the 1957 version.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbd5927fb-069a-48d3-84be-f52ec17c67d7_2516x1200.heic)
I have a personal connection to the Seamaster Diver 300M watch, because I actually used to have one. While I was happy with my subsequent watch, a Rolex Datejust, I nonetheless miss the Omega. That one I used to have will be the basis for this review, but it is important to note that there is wide range of models, with variation in color, material, etc. You can check out all the different versions here: Omega Seamaster Diver.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9d8190bb-04b8-48a8-b3fb-638da372ab0b_450x450.heic)
Aesthetic Score:
Zooming out, the Diver 300M is a great looking watch. When looking from above, the silhouette of the watch is near perfect in my opinion. Relative to the sizable 42mm case, everything is properly in proportion, from the lugs to the strap to the crown. Zooming in, is a mixed bag, with details that I like more, and some that I like less. Let’s address the elephant in the room— why I chose the rubber strap over the bracelet. The bracelet, is really unattractive, in my opinion. With the exception of Rolex’s Jubilee bracelet, I typically don’t like five link bracelets; they're too busy (and the Jubilee is essentially a three link with the middle section subdivided into three smaller sections). The Seamaster’s bracelet a five link, but it also has four skinny extra sections that attached to second and fourth link, arguably making it a nine link bracelet. Additionally there is no taper in the bracelet, making it look less integrated and elegant. Lastly, the clasp is made from a thick piece of stainless steel. Durable? Yes. Cheap looking? Extremely. Typically, people recommend that you buy the bracelet version of the watch and swap in a strap, since the resale of the bracelet versions of most watches are higher. But the bracelet version was more expensive, and I would have had to buy the strap separately, but in my opinion, there is no reason anyone should ever choose that bracelet. On the other hand, the rubber strap is comfortable, sporty, cheaper, and the two stripes that run down the length are a nice feature. The pin buckle for the strap looks like it was designed with far more attention to detail than the clasp on the bracelet.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_720,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1bc0bc1e-7561-4f63-8190-b5063ac9d745_450x450.avif)
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_720,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F750a1842-231a-4b39-a917-e445891c484a_720x900.avif)
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_720,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8d92509b-f3c2-4085-acb0-2fb370945ca4_450x450.avif)
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_720,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc02c505f-a982-4875-ac35-0ff931a17c1a_720x900.avif)
Next. let’s address the the stainless steel Reece’s Cup found at 10 o’clock on the case. This is a helium escape valve. Under the water pressure found deep below the surface of the ocean, sufficient helium can migrate into the watch due to the minuscule size of the atoms. When the diver surfaces, the pressurized helium tries to escape, and although the gas entered via the tiny gaps between parts, the easiest way out is pop open the watch. The helium escape valve allows an easier method to de-pressurize the watch, and it can be opened during a dive. However, I think it is a bit unsightly on the watch. It is well understood that few people actually use their watches the for the activities they are actually built for. At best, a dive watch may find its way into a poolside Instagram photo. At worst, the only deep dives a watch may see are in an Excel spreadsheet. I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole about needs vs. wants when it comes to watches; I know that is a losing battle. But I am still against adding a feature that may technically be useful, if it is unsightly. Not to mention both Rolex and Tudor have found a way to make their helium escape valves more subtle.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd2eaaf8d-0f43-4f43-8390-7192402a6941_450x450.heic)
While the case looks great from above, the side profile is less attractive. One feature that is common throughout Omega’s lineup is the shape of the lugs, known as lyre style. There is a crease in the middle of each lug, and the material slopes down on each side of the crease, towards the strap or bracelet and the outside of the watch. From the side of the watch though, the lugs seem to protrude horizontally from the case, only tapering down at the very end. In my opinion, this makes the side profile of the watch appear too long, and depending on the side of the wearer's wrist, the strap or bracelet will be at a different angle than the lugs, making the design look less cohesive. The solution for this would be to taper the crease at the top of the lugs more gradually, similar to many other watches. I believe Omega can do this and still preserve the lyre style lugs.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F88ab4ae5-b48f-4fcc-9aaa-fb4325a5b8d0_2100x1400.heic)
Additionally, the shape formed by the outer part of the lug gives the watch the silhouette that I like, while the beveled interiors are a nice feature. Depending on how sharp the interior and exterior parts of the lug slope down, the outer part, which give the watch its overall favorable silhouette, may somewhat disappear depending on the light. When this occurs, it looks like the inner part and the crease form the entirety of the lug, and this shape is not very attractive. I don’t like watches with short and pointy lugs, such as Omega’s Seamaster Aqua Terra 150M. I find that the longer lugs transition better into the strap or bracelet, whereas shorter and stubbier lugs make the case look rounder and the strap or bracelet less integrated. Ironically, if my initial solution for the side profile were to be utilized, the sides of the lugs would slope a bit less solving the second issue as well.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F14820130-6fbe-4a5a-8c38-a2f623dd554a_450x450.heic)
Some other small details to note include the hands and bezel. Although Omega has used the skeleton hands on a number of Seamasters, I think concept can be evolved to look more cohesive. To me, the hands look like a variety of shapes thrown together. I think the hour and minute hand should resemble each other, with the length being the differentiating factor (and, in the dark, the different lume color of the minute hand). While I like the bezel overall, only the small bezel pearl found in the 12 o’clock position features lume, and I would really like the whole triangle there to be filled in with lume. Further, the numbers on the bezel are not really related to diving. If you rotate the bezel to where the triangle lines up with the minute hand, you can use those numbers as a 60 minute timer. Those numbers do not need lume, but it would be cool to have, and Omega already does that on the James Bond edition of the watch. Lastly, I don’t know why Omega used the two rectangles to indicate 12 o’clock. While they are bright in the dark, they look like a pause button.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F408491e8-94fb-474f-b283-6a4c888fac3b_720x900.heic)
Despite all these points, there are a lot of design features that I find very appealing on the Seamaster. I like the whimsical laser-cut wave pattern on the dial (in fact, I wish that Omega did not interrupt the wave pattern to copy Rolex’s habit of including a paragraph of text above 6 o’clock). The crown guards are designed nicely and are potentially helpful to protecting the watch from impacts. I like that the date is at the 6 o’clock position and the window forms the same rectangle found at the other quarters (excluding two rectangles that create the pause button, of course). Further, Omega matches the color of the date’s background to the dial, which is a nice touch. Overall, the Seamaster makes for a great dive watch design, even if there are quite a few details that I would modify here and there. Final Score: 7.5/10
2. Watchmaking Score:
The Seamaster Diver 300M is powered by Omega’s Caliber 8800. This movement is made by ETA, but it is exclusive to Omega. I will let the reader decide whether or not they think this is okay or whether or not Omega should use a fully in-house movement. This automatic movement beats at 21,600 vph, and will run for 55 hours, both of which are solid numbers. The movement has earned both COSC and METAS, which back up Omega’s claims about the movement. The 8800 also makes use of a silicone hairspring, which is not susceptible to magnetic forces, and uses George Daniels’s coaxial escapement, improving durability and decreasing service requirements. The watch and its movement are mechanically, although handsomely finished, although I am not sure why there is a part cut out from the rotor. The watch feels very solid and strong, and the crown and bezel are pleasant to operate. Overall, the Seamaster’s watchmaking is above average, and befitting of its position and price within Omega’s lineup. Final Score: 7.5/10
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5082e114-43c0-4d9e-b5d0-c50647a310dc_720x900.heic)
3. Value Score:
At $5,600 new, the Seamaster Diver 300M can be purchased used for a bit over $4,000, at least for the white dial version that I used to have. Other versions can cost more, both new and used. This is a fantastic value. For one, this is a watch that is often compared to the Rolex Submariner. In many ways, the Omega beats the Rolex in terms of features/ value for money. The Rolex trounces the Omega only because of the image and reputation that the brand has built, particularly with the Submariner. I would never recommend that you buy a watch if you want a harder to get or more expensive one, because the first purchase will not scratch that itch. But if you are partial to the Seamaster over the Sub in terms of design and features, the fact that the Omega is about 25% of the price of the Rolex (secondary market prices) is a huge plus. Ignoring the Submariner, however, the Omega is a great value on its own. The features, specifications, durability, style, and reputation are well worth the price, not to mention, it is a watch that will look at home anywhere any time. Final Score: 8.5/10
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6550d28a-c610-4683-b849-6fe0c3f2e79a_450x450.heic)
Conclusion: 23.5/30
The Omega Seamaster Diver is an iconic watch from an iconic brand. Although there are many small design details that I would change, it is an overall great value, and I often think about the one that I used to have. The Seamaster was a great do-it-all watch for me, and I think that it can be a great addition to any collection.
Disclosure: my opinions on a given watch’s value are speculative and are intended for entertainment purposes. Nothing I write is to be considered investment advice.