You are reading a single comment by @D-Dog and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • I know this is a bit predictable coming from me when regarding Omega but I couldn’t disagree more with regards to Aqua Terra / value for money .
    It stacks up alongside datejust 2 all day long , for less money.
    Tudor is lovely but not in the same league as the master chronometer movement . We see more Tudor warranty returns than omega.
    All personal taste but the aqua terra is a more elegant watch than the datejust 2 whilst being more water resistant at the same time .

  • I definitely prefer it's to the datejust 2, would go with the original datejust or 39mm white OP instead of the updated model.
    Yes definitely topped movement wise. I do really like the look of the Aqua Terra, maybe one day if I get a good secondhand deal, full price is out of my budget.

  • The Datejust II was discontinued in 2016 lads.

    The current Datejusts have a more conventional lever escapement than the AT but they’ve done a lot of work on it, made it asymmetric, which has resulted in efficiency savings so great that it achieves a 70 hour power reserve vs 55 hours on the smaller AT and 60 on the larger one (despite the Omega 8900 having two barrels). The Omega is certified to -4/+6, the Rolex to -2/+2. The coaxial escapement needs less lubrication, sure, but the service interval is still 5-8 years vs 10 years on the Rolex.

    Ok, the Omega has a better magnetic resistance rating (they specifically test for it) but the whole Chronergy escapement is amagnetic now including the balance spring and lever. I get the technical achievement of the coaxial escapement but I don’t agree with this supposed superiority of the 8800/8900 over the 3235.

    I’ll fuck off now. :)

  • I’ve got a silver dialled with blue that’s a bit of a bargain at mo ....

About

Avatar for D-Dog @D-Dog started