Author's Note: I originally wrote this as at the request of a number of people in the Omega Forum when I said that I didn't care for the new model of the Seamaster Professional Chronograph, which I've taken to calling the SeMPC-ACC for SeaMaster Professional Chronograph - America's Cup Chronograph. You can easily contrast my thoughts about the earlier version of the SeMPC (which I now sometimes call the SeMPC-1, sometimes just SeMPC) by viewing my article: TZ 889 Revisited: Of Seamasters, Speedmasters and uddah T'ing's. … Without further ado... It reeks of Rolex... Of course there is nothing wrong with that, Rolex makes fine watches. However, everyone, and I really do mean e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e, imitates them or have imitated them in the past. And of course if the Rolex style wasn't serviceable and attractive it wouldn't be copied so readily... And of course, if I really wanted a Rolex, I'd buy one. But that's not what made the original Seamaster Professional Chronograph so unique in the first place. Previous Seamaster Chronographs were trendy, almost to an extreme (for example), odd (reference Darth Vader Seamaster), and frankly were not typically all that well suited to one of it's intended main "tool watch" uses: Diving. I've yet to see the use of a Tachy bezel on the water or under it, for example. I can't remember the last time I was on or under the water and saw a Mile or Kilometer marker wizz by... With the exception of the 120m/400ft Seamaster c.1040 of the early 1970's most Seamaster Chronographs prior to the SeMPC-1 (1993~4) didn't even have a diving bezel. So when Omega introduced the original Seamaster Pro in the early 1990's they really took a good hard look at what a diving chronograph should be, what others were doing, and what they could do to produce the best water-going chronograph on the market.
It goes without saying that a Black SeMPC was going to look closer to the ,,Rolex Sub Chronograph,, paradigm than the existant SeMPC would. If that was the only change I'd be satisfied with it. It they changed/improved a few other things, I would probably still be interested in one. But there are a number of, for lack of better words, flubs, mistakes, oversights and general goofiness that makes the new Seamaster Pro a must pass watch... Of course these are my opinions, and as we all well know, opinions always seem to be more on target when spoken of in the first person... There are one or two good changes though...
It's in the right place, it's in the right color scheme (white on black)... The only real problem is the possibility of someone misreading a chronograph hour indication with it hanging down there (not particularly likely). I wasn't a huge fan of the white border around the old date window, but since Omega seems to be re-embracing the applied metal look, perhaps this would be a good application for an applied metal frame. Well, that's about it for the good... I mean they haven't abandoned the tried and true case or abandoned any of the feature set. The bracelet, while I still prefer the older SeMPC style bracelet probably would not look as good on a Black/Black watch. But many of the rest of the details leave a lot to be desired... The Movement... Even though I've talked enough about the movement that I'm certain people are sick of hearing me talk about it, I'll summarize my earlier comments again... One might expect an admitted chronograph addict like myself would be doing handsprings at the prospect of a new column wheel automatic movement. However, I have strong earnest concerns with replacing a solid, reliable, accurate, performer with a positive spare parts availability situation second to none. The new Broad Arrow movement, for all it's sophication and "Haute Horology" pedigree remains a largely untried and untested movement compared to other chronographs Omega has produced in the past. Those of us who have been into watches for a couple of years will remember the initial problems that the Co-Axial escapement movements had when they were first released. Just about everyone ended up needing to go on a prolonged Swiss Spa visit (if you know what I mean), in order to perform as promised. Similarly, Rolex has had a long and particularly bumpy ride in it's quest to replace the Daytona's eld El-Primero based movement with an in-house. Whispered rumors that every Daytona shipped the first year of production ended up needing a return trip to Geneva for remediation, just like the Co-Axial... I also remember that Omega has in the past used and nearly as quickly abandoned other automatic chronograph movements: calibres 1040, 1041, and 1045. All of which were and are stalwart performers. The c.1040 and 1041 are a bit eccentric with their sub-dial positioning, but nothing that one can't get used to. In the case of the c.1040 the movement was used for about 5 years before being abandoned, the c.1041 was only used for the Speedmaster 125 (2,000 units). The c.1045 was used off and on (mostly off) for about 14 years, with the bulk of the usage in a 5 year stretch in non-US markets. Except for collectors these movements, which are fine performers, are largely forgotten. Omega.us typically won't service them, preferring to ship them to Switzerland in case parts are necessary. The question remains how long Omega will embrace this movement... Hopefully, the concerns I've raised previously will be largely or entirely unfounded, hopefully the new movement will "be a keeper" and well worth the diminished parts availability the previous movement enjoyed... Only time will tell... Enough said. Let's jump into specifics...
Now generally, I prefer Applied Metal Logo's, they have the tendency to simplify a dial that would otherwise be busy, especially with a black dialed watch. But in this case, I'm a little concerned that both the Omega logo "W" and the Omega name is applied. I guess I am afraid that both will be frequently lost and the watch will somehow suffer an identity crisis. None of the c.321 Speedmasters, Seamasters, or Darth Vader Seamaster had an applied "Omega" to go with the "W", but the Speedmaster 125 did. I don't know if this is or will prove to be a big issue, just thought I'd point it out...
This is a distinction from the earlier SeMPC with the new one. The old SeMPC's minute markers were circular and completely overpainted with luminous. The new SeMPC follows the Rolex style of applied metal surrounds to the minute markers. It's really a matter of taste. With only one picture to go by it's tough to get gushy or medieval on them. They are a definite nod towards the Rolex style, but at least they have a generally consistent shape and with the exception of the 12, 3, 6, 9 markers a consistent size. The others are at least larger than they were on the 1st generation SeMPC.
Here we have Omega continuing the trend of copying recent Rolex developments (largely the Yachtmaster) with enlarged text on the diving bezel. While I don't mind the larger type, I'd really rather they hadn't done it at the expense of tick marks on the bezel on either side of the number... Notice there is no tick mark for 31 or 29 on this bezel. The SeMPC had 'em. Perhaps 1 minute isn't a big deal under water. Perhaps it is...
One of the eagerly awaited aspects of putting the new "BA" movement in the SeMPC was the famed "Tri-Compax" layout and left-right symmetry... Well, Omega screwed it up. Because of their choice of numbering and using 60, 15, 30, and 45 instead of the previous 60, 20, 40 setup they symmetry of the Tri-Compax layout is ruined by the sub-dials. STUPID! STUPID! What are they thinking in Bienne? I think their cheese has gone sour, their chocolates have melted, the blade on their army knifes are obviously dulled and rusty. I'm no rocket scientist, but this is really boneheaded...
Omega has chosen to adopt the broad sword hands of the SeMP Black/Black for the chronograph. I assume this was done for purposes of better visibility, even in low light conditions. But I have yet to have found an instance when the hands on the old Seamaster were not easily readable:
This is a pretty dusky condition and I don't really have any problem picking out the hands from the dial. The real problem with the new hands is that they really cover the dial, and the Chronograph sub-dials. In the insert above, note how the hour hand already impinges on the sub-register and it's the smaller of the two main time keeping hands. The solution that the original SeMPC used was to skeletonize the hands. This worked great. I wonder why Omega is abandoning it now. Admittedly the hour hand on the SeMPC-1 left something to be desired, but they were much more practical and suited to the intended task than what we see in this photo... I don't know why they couldn't just skeletonize everything except for the arrow tips and make the hour hand diamond shaped for distinctiveness. But they aren't asking me...
One of the things that I immediately noticed on each watch was how the luminous dot on the SeMPC eclipsed the axles of the sub-dial hands as it rotated around it's pinion. A wonderful attention to detail. The new model SeMPC-ACC clearly doesn't do this. It looks like they just grafted on the hour and minute hands from a SeMP Black/Black, threw on the hand from an old SeMPC, and didn't take into account that the pinions of the the sub-dials are in a different location than the old Valjoux 7750 base movement. A galling and grating lack of attention to detail. A Summation... In the end Omega chose to take the quick and easy route to updating the SeMPC. Namely the desire to bring a new movement to market quickly, forced the use of off the rack parts, quickly cobbled together to make it work, stirred with a distinct lack of attention to detail. It means mourning for fans of the watch that took watch of the year for the SeMPC's passing. Omega appears to have abandoned the SeMPC-1's distinctness and originality in favor of copying and emulating Rolex once again. It is as fellow SeMPC owner Jeff Huber said "it looks like a factory Frankenwatch"... Part of the Rolex emulation is a $900 to $1,100 price jump into Rolex's territory. In the end it also is a return to the time before the original SeMPC when Omega regularly changed the watch every couple of years to seek out additional sales. I doubt the new model will stay unchanged in the product line for as long as the SeMPC. If you want one, my advise is to wait, as there will likely be lots of sellers in the Sales Corners once people notice these differences and how much of a goulash of a watch this appears to be. Why pay the extreme price that Omega is asking for this watch... Let the original owner take the depreciation hit. The introduction of the SeMPC-ACC has seemed to have a polarizing effect on people. It seems that either people love it or they dislike it strongly. The love it crowd sometimes feel that their counterparts on the other side of the topic are "sticks in the mud", "afraid of change", "unfair" or just wanting to bash Omega. But I have tried to keep my thoughts on things I can point to, and not find fault without cause. If I had really wanted to bash Omega (actually I would like to berate them some!) in type I could easily have done so. I for one would have loved for a well thought through and executed update of the SeMPC-1, especially a Black/Black version perhaps with some of the other benefits that the new Broad Arrow movement would allow. If it were just one element, that we in the dislike crowd, hitting a sour note, we would likely over look it, but there are just so many of them, it's like listening to P.D.Q. Bach instead of J.S. Bach...  Which is fine if you enjoy a good laugh. I just find the price of admission more than a bit steep... My greatest disappointment is that the SeMPC-ACC could have been so much better, if Omega had followed their previous path of reexamining the Diver's watch paradigm and came up with an interesting alternative to the existing paradigms. They just stumbled on far too many things. Of course, these are just my opinions. You are more than entitled to hold your own opinions. However don't expect me to be standing in line either in the new department or the Sales Corner for this one. No thank you pal... But that's just my opinion... -- Chuck
I must say, your deconstruction of the SeMPC-ACC is ... the best I've ever read and I find myself agreeing with virtually everypoint. Well, my initial reaction was to "bust Omega up" over this one, but I decided that wasn't going to be particularly useful, so I changed the tone as I typed it out... Especially the symmetry, which is subtly evident in the speedmaster pro but not implemented in the BA or the SMPC-2. I still don't understand why they didn't stick with the skeleton hands. They used them in the Regatta chrono and they would have been a godsend in the SMPC-ACC. One of the things that I have been waiting for a major manufacturer to implement is the concept of translucent hands. I know that Ventura has a watch module which has a saphire glass rotor which doesn't obscure the wonderful work they do on the movement. So why doesn't someone (aside from mystery watch manufacturers like Quinting) use a similar concept with the hands of a chronograph? Excellent legibility at night (if they are impregnated with a thin layer of Superlumova) whilst still providing the abilty to see the sub-dials beneath... But the keenest observation you made was the elapsed seconds hand. I did not realize the SeMPC has the luminous dot cover the sub-dial pinion. THAT is a good catch! And I noticed it many years ago, and first pointed it out to others on TimeZone about the same time the Omega Forum opened nearly three years ago... I feel it's one of the most prominent characteristics of the SeMPC that shows the great attention to detail the designers had when working on the earlier model... Interestingly, even the Blancpain flyback lacks the subdial symmetry you describe despite having a different subdial layout than the BA. There are precious few Chronographs that have true dial symetry (which dictates a 2 or 4-Register dial) and few 3-Register watches that exhibit horizonal symetery... The moonwatch is one of course, the Heuer Carrera 1964 (both original Valjoux 72 model, and the recent Lemania 1874 powered Re-Edition) being another along with a number of c.321 and c.861 Seamaster models... However, I am beginning to realize that there are few chronographs on the market that have the "total package." They are all like children, all have their individual strengths, weaknesses and personalities. The SeMPC-ACC had the potential to be the phenom, the real deal, the one that had it all. In my eye's its a major disappointment. I could have probably gotten over the largely untried movement if they hit all the bags on the other elements, but it seems at every opportunity to do just that they chose an opposite path.. It's too bad... I really wish it weren't so...
|
||||||
on 29 March 2002, 
The Date Wheel/Window:
The Logo:
Applied Minute Tick
Marks:
The Bezel:
No Symmetry when there could have easily been
symmetry...
The Time Keeping Hands:
On the subject of timekeeping hands what's with the
second hand?
