dvn Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Just saw this deal over TZ but don't know whether it is a automatic or not. i wish i saw it 3 days earlier bacause i just pull the tirgger on a BCE and HBB In case someone else interested http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tre...89811&rid=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuDro Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 I do not think that Omega made the GMT Seamaster in quartz, so I am betting that it is an automatic.... And you are right, great price! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylar Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Something looks fishy here. The GMT hand is at the 12:00 postion and the time at the watch shows it is 7:04 In this case if its AM or PM the hand should be between the 4 and 5 positiion for 07:04 or between the 10 and 11 position for 19:04. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Looks good to me but I am not an Omega expert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrgod Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Nice watch for a good price, I think it is original. Even though I thought the Seamaster GMT used a Seamaster clasp on the bracelet... Probably this is a somewhat older model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWG Technical Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Something looks fishy here. The GMT hand is at the 12:00 postion and the time at the watch shows it is 7:04 In this case if its AM or PM the hand should be between the 4 and 5 positiion for 07:04 or between the 10 and 11 position for 19:04. The time is 7:04, the GMT hand is slightly past the 6 position on the dial, which is correct, and the bezel is lined up more or less with the bezel 24 above the 12 of the dial. What is wrong with the GMT hand position? I dont' understand your explanation at all... I can move the bezel and put the GMT hand at any position I choose on the bezel, right now the GMT hand is on the 12 marker, if I move the bezel to put the GMT hand under the 18 marker, or any other marker, what difference does it make? How about if you move the GMT hand alone, what happens then (or does it not move independent on this model?) I did not know that the GMT hand was supposed to be in a certain location on the dial dependent of the time on the hour and minute hands, I always thought the GMT hand told the time in Greenich England, independent of the local time... What your suggesting is that the GMT time should be the same as the local time (7:04 or 19:04)...but that is only true if your on the prime meridian where both GMT and Local time are the same...this doesn't apply anywhere else on the planet (say Eastern Time USA, GMT-5 Hrs)... Confused... RG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triplehd Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Agree with The Zigmeister - the GMT hand can be moved independantly, so the owner may not be using the GMT function.... This is a GEN with an Automatica movement (GMTs are not made with a quartz movement). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronus Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 (edited) The time is 7:04, the GMT hand is slightly past the 6 position on the dial, which is correct, and the bezel is lined up more or less with the bezel 24 above the 12 of the dial. What is wrong with the GMT hand position? I dont' understand your explanation at all... I can move the bezel and put the GMT hand at any position I choose on the bezel, right now the GMT hand is on the 12 marker, if I move the bezel to put the GMT hand under the 18 marker, or any other marker, what difference does it make? How about if you move the GMT hand alone, what happens then (or does it not move independent on this model?) I did not know that the GMT hand was supposed to be in a certain location on the dial dependent of the time on the hour and minute hands, I always thought the GMT hand told the time in Greenich England, independent of the local time... What your suggesting is that the GMT time should be the same as the local time (7:04 or 19:04)...but that is only true if your on the prime meridian where both GMT and Local time are the same...this doesn't apply anywhere else on the planet (say Eastern Time USA, GMT-5 Hrs)... Confused... RG Omega GMTs have independently settable hour hands. Read this. By the way, the Tag Link Chrono mentioned is for the quartz version and not automatic, and also has an independently settable hour hand. In these watches, the "time-setting" crown position will go as normal, with the GMT hand incrementing from one hour marker to the next, once the hour hand has passed two hours. The "date-set" position is used to independently adjust the hour hand only. Turning one way clicks the hour hand exactly one hour forward. Turning the other way clicks it exactly one hour back. That is, the hour hand will be in the correct position relative to the minutes shown. An example: if you moved from 7.30 to 8.30, the hour hand will be between the 2 hour markers. IT CANNOT BE IN ANY OTHER POSITION THAT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE MINUTE HAND. If it is, get it serviced, as there is something wrong. Further, there is no quickset date feature on these GMT models - you have to cycle through 24 hours (that is 12am to 12am) to get the date to change to the next day. I hope this helps people understand how genuine Omega Seamaster GMTs, as well as genuine R*l*x GMTs really work. GMT hands are so-called as (what I believe was) the original GMT watch was commissioned by Pan-Am via Rolex to create a watch that displayed Greenwich Mean Time. This was useful for pilots to keep track of time easily while crossing time zones, while the GMT hand would always display that time. The independently adjustable hour hand feature means that the minutes and seconds continue as normal while the hour hand is set to the local hour. The only country this would be problematic is one part of India where there is a half hour change. Apart from that every time zone has the same minutes and seconds around the world, just a different hour. This "true GMT" feature has been replicated in R*l*x GMT reps, but they cost more and dealers have advised me against it in the past due to it being relatively new (around 6 months to a year) and not much of a proven track record. The independently adjustable GMT hands used in the Omega and Rlx reps usually use a modified ETA 2836 that has the GMT working off the day feature and cycling around 24 hours in accordance with that. Back to this watch for sale, if it IS genuine, it's a great deal. The clasp is correct (mine has that one too). The pictures are unclear on my 7-year old monitor that needs replacing so I can't help too much. Pictures don't look great to begin with. I would advise that you ask the seller if they are fine with Omega checking it out to see if it is 100% genuine and if it is not, he will give a full 100% refund including all shipping charges. And The Zigmeister, you are correct, the GMT hand can be set for any time, it does not have to follow the time displayed by the hour hand (ie. it can display 1900 when the hour hand says 5). An aside, the ETA 2893-2 is ETA's "GMT" movement, however it takes shortcuts to achieve functionality, and as a traveller, is not intuitive or useful. When crossing a time zone, you have to cycle round the minute hand 60 minutes so that the hour hand (and GMT) hand increment by one hour. What you don't want is for the minutes and seconds to stop, as this is a constant through almost every time zone. With this movement, you still need a reference to synchronize the watch, so that you have the correct time. This ETA 2893-2 "GMT" movement has an independently adjustable GMT hand, which can be set by turning the crown downwards to move the GMT forward an hour at a time. Turning the crown upwards will activate the quickset date and increment the date by 1 each time. The ETA 2893-2 is not really a real GMT alternative to the serious traveller, and explains why Omega declined to use the ETA 2893-2 movement in their Omega Seamaster GMTs. Edited February 2, 2007 by Chronus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvn Posted February 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 I need someone to take over the payment for my BCE (from Angus) and HBB RG (from Joshua) so i can buy this baby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005SUBMARINER Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 call me crazy , but i think BYTHORS $95 omega gmt looks just as good as this one .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triplehd Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 call me crazy , but i think BYTHORS $95 omega gmt looks just as good as this one .. Yep, the GMT rep version is gettinng better - Correct white window around the date field as well as the correct insert pattern (primarily at "18"). The only difference is the hands are too short Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrgod Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 The newest ETA-based Seamaster GMT is a stunner... with correct long hands. A bit expensive, though. This picture are from PureTime: For some strange reason, the dial says "GMT automatic" and not "GMT Chronometer". I don't know if there are two different versions?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronus Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 The newest ETA-based Seamaster GMT is a stunner... with correct long hands. A bit expensive, though. This picture are from PureTime: For some strange reason, the dial says "GMT automatic" and not "GMT Chronometer". I don't know if there are two different versions?? Short hands, bezel off at transition from black to silver, probably incorrect GMT functionality, and the crown looks funny in that picture, but not sure, maybe it's just the picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrgod Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Short hands, bezel off at transition from black to silver, probably incorrect GMT functionality, and the crown looks funny in that picture, but not sure, maybe it's just the picture. Yep.. The hands might still be a bit too short.. But still better than the old rep-version. Crown looks a bit odd, too dark. It looks better in other pictures. I bet the GMT-funcion is the same as on the regular Explorer II/ GMT-master reps, ith individually settable GMT-hand. It usually functions well. The original is ETA 2892-A2 based. Interesting to read By-Tors review of the 95 USD Seamaster GMT. This watch has been made with both the Seamaster bracelet ( as the watch advertised on TZ) and the Speedmaster bracelet.. :-) For those interested in the Seamaster-GMT, here is a review on that model Omega Seamaster GMT review ( Thanks to Chronus for posting the link in By-Tors post) This is the Genuine.. Personally, I am hard pressed to see the error in the transition between black and silver on the bezel, compared with the rep.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest avitt Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 (edited) I just checked eBay, and this seems to be about the going rate for Omega GMTs. The range is about $900-$1100. Similar watches sold recently for $870, and $835. Edited February 3, 2007 by avitt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triplehd Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 Short hands, bezel off at transition from black to silver, probably incorrect GMT functionality, and the crown looks funny in that picture, but not sure, maybe it's just the picture. These ETA versions are 2836 - no true "GMT" movement. Crown does look a bit wierd. The only short hand is the GMT hand. The OEM GMT hand has a bigger arrowhead than the rep. Other than, probably the most accurate rep of this watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronus Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 This is the Genuine.. Personally, I am hard pressed to see the error in the transition between black and silver on the bezel, compared with the rep.. The rep one doesnt stop and start exactly, and it slightly "bleeds" over... but if you don't see it, better not to look for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marrickvilleboy Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 genuine Omega GMT with bond seamaster band but with old model clasp. This model is very old, so the price reflects it. The newer models all have the speedmaster style band and clasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triplehd Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 The newest ETA-based Seamaster GMT is a stunner... with correct long hands. A bit expensive, though. This picture are from PureTime: For some strange reason, the dial says "GMT automatic" and not "GMT Chronometer". I don't know if there are two different versions?? Yep, PureTime's version is a stunner and great eye - the OEM dial says CHRONOMETER and not AUTOMATIC. But the rest of the dial looks correct - white border around the datefield and correct markers (not outlines with silver like the 2254 SMP reps). Other than that, still looks great, but yes, a bit expensive ($40 to ship to the US ?!?!? - better be next day shipping !). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.