-
My hot take that no-one asked for: Omega are trying to turn a tool watch movement (a very beautifully designed one, but still a tool watch movement) into a super premium (for them) product line on the basis of heritage/history/marketing and the artificial scarcity created by having them made by individual watchmakers in small quantities (rather than setting up a conventional production line). They are trying to create their own Daytona situation, basically.
It’s very nice and I’d love to own one, but there is no reason for it to have been three times the price of a regular Speedmaster Pro, except that they wanted it to be three times the price, and then figured out how to make that happen.
Regal-
-
Yep, I agree re the blatent positioning. It'll be interesting how it plays out though as they are in the slightly different position to Rolex of there being loads of cheaper, similar looking versions readily available - would the GMT / Daytona's get such hype and go for such money if there were similar GMTs / chronos in Rolex's line up?
My worry is that they decide to hike prices on the Moonwatch or pull it, which would be a shame as they're such brilliant watches which are (or rather used to be) good value compared to the Rolexs / PPs etc of this world.
hugo7
Detritus
The new Speedie is a proper looker but by crikey that's bonkers expensive.
I think it's because i'm not especially into (ie I have no idea about) movements, but I don't get the big deal about the 321, other than it's the first one that went to space. My understanding is that there's no real mechanical advantage over the 1861, so it's just going nuts for the sake of historical accuracy (which sits a bit oddly with Omega's decision to use a sapphire sandwich on the watch to make it look prettier)?