sco wrote:
In my opinion, I can't stand the bezel font on the chronomats with the 01 movement. Not only do I think it's dated, not so attractive, and overall goofy looking, but the important thing to me is that you cannot accurately gauge the minutes in between the marked numbers. I want to know to the minute (quickly and without using my chronograph) how much time has elapsed. On the older style Breitlings with rider tabs this is a simple task. That's the biggest flaw... function.
Good point. However the purpose of the bezel is not for precise elapsed time but more for quick reference. Take diving for example, I don't think a diver needs to know so precisely the minutes between the markers because he will not likely wait till the last minute before emerging from water. He just needs the bezel as an estimated guide in order to know roughly the time for exit. Therefore legibility is more important than precision on the bezel since the user needs to know the estimated time taken quickly even in situations when visibility is affected(eg, when water gets milky during diving). The chronograph is meant for precise timing while the bezel is for quick reference so I find the B01 makes better sense because you don't need 2 tools to perform the same function on a watch. I find the older style with the rider tabs a little unnecessary as they are less legible for quick reference and the chronograph can simply do the job of precise timing without them. I find the rider tabs more necessary on non-chronograph watches like SF. The rider tabs also makes the watch look too rugged aesthetically that can't really compliment a formal outfit, unlike the current B01 that portrays a sense of elegance that goes well with formal wear too. The thing I hate most about the older Chronomats is the way they positioned the sub-dials, I personally hate a sub-dial being positioned at 12 O'clock cos the Sec Hand Sweep overlaps and blocks it visually when not using. It loses the functional appeal visually IMO. That makes the current B01 perfect again. Well I guess tastes differ.... Just like how majority likes the Sub C but just couldn't convince me despite making multiple trips to an AD to try it on. I have been trying to appreciate the strengths but maybe too many people are having it that left me cold, as I prefer to own something that not many has. To me Sub C is safe in looks that most will accept(but also means so-so and not unique), technical specs are so-so, just gives me an overall feeling that it is just average in all aspects. I have seen many people wearing it and just gives me a "so-so" impression. Maybe that's the plus point and the intention about the watch that tells people that it is an all rounded everyday watch and not meant to impress or standout in anyway. Would still hope to accept and own it one day as I want to experience having it myself before flipping it. Quite sure that it wouldn't be my main holy grail watch...
I am not familiar with Omega but the one you mentioned is quite nice and one of the nicest looking among all Omega pieces that I have seen so far IMO. Timeless looking is definite but most importantly it has a more sense of identity as compared to some models that gives me a "Rolex Wanna Be" kind of impression. This looks nicer than most Rolex models.
Login
Register
FAQ
Thks for contributing