Follow me on instagram: @sgwristwatcher
Omega and Grand Seiko are both hugely popular luxury watch brands. But both brands have and issue not many people are talking about. This videos explores the main issue with Omega and Grand Seiko watches.
As an avid enthusiast of both Omega and Grand Seiko, I have a great appreciation for these luxury watches. Omega has a fascinating history with the moonwatch, military background, and chronometer competitions, while Grand Seiko is renowned for its impeccable zaratsu polish and groundbreaking innovations, such as the automatic chronograph, quartz, and spring drive movements. However, one issue that often arises among watch enthusiasts is the thickness of these brands.
To put things into perspective, the Omega Aqua Terra is 13.1mm thick, while the Grand Seiko is only slightly thicker at 13.3mm. While these numbers may not seem too excessive, they are still somewhat bulky when compared to their counterparts. For instance, the Rolex Explorer has a thickness of only 11.5mm, and the Datejust, considered the benchmark for a sporty/dressy watch with a date and 100m water resistance, has a thickness of 11.8mm. This small difference in size can significantly affect the overall look and feel of the watch.
Furthermore, even more affordable watches, such as the Hamilton Khaki Field Automatic, which boasts 100m of water resistance, are only 10.8mm thick, and it costs only $700. So, why are Omega and Grand Seiko watches so thick?
The primary reason for this thickness appears to be related to their movements. The Omega Aqua Terra uses the calibre 8500 movement, which is 5.5mm thick, likely due to the coaxial movement. However, this has resulted in some issues, as the Omega Dark Side of the Moon chronograph is an excessive 16.1mm thick, compared to the Rolex Daytona, which is only 12.4mm. The Grand Seiko 9S65 movement is 6mm thick, while the ETA 2824 and ETA 2892 movements, considered workhorse movements, are 4.6mm and 3.6mm, respectively. Interestingly, according to an article from SJX Watches, these movements far outperform many high horology movements when it comes to the unit of Horological Density Factor (HDF), a stat that determines which movements are the most efficient in providing energy per unit of volume.
Another factor that could explain the thickness of Grand Seiko watches is the thickness of the hands and indices, which are famous for their multifaceted design that plays with light. The trade-off for such a design is that the watch requires high clearances between the dial and crystal to accommodate the hands.
Thankfully, both companies seem to be aware of these issues and have taken steps to address them. Grand Seiko has developed the new high-end 9SA5 movement, which is only 5.18mm tall, despite its high-beat frequency and 80-hour power reserve. This provides a 0.8mm savings compared to the 9S65, and they have also removed the winding rotor for dressy watches, reducing thickness even further.
Similarly, Omega has removed automatic winding for their dressy watches, such as the Tresor and the new Speedmaster 57 chronograph. The new hand-wound version is only 13mm thick, compared to the 16.17mm thickness of the automatic version. However, there is still room for improvement, as the new hand-wound version is only 50m water-resistant compared to the slimmer and 100m water-resistant Daytona. Further trimming may be necessary to achieve a balance between design and functionality.
In conclusion, while Omega and Grand Seiko offer stunning timepieces with impressive movements and design, their thickness can be a detractor for many watch enthusiasts. However, with the introduction of thinner movements and removing the winding rotor for dressy watches, we can hope to see more sleek and wearable luxury watches from these brands in the future.
