2254.50 vs bond

[Wisconsin Proud]

..... bereft of the fussy and metrosexual bling on the Bond's dial which contains sparkling white gold applied hour index surrounds.

Wow.......just wow.......

[dligg72]

Thank you everyone for there replies. I would most definitely like a NIB 2254 but think it would be a difficult task to find one. I just like the look of the watch more than the newer model.

[tdunn28]

Aside from the fact that the Omega Bond is a paid piece of movie product placement and lacks credibility as a tool watch, a primary reason the 2254 is preferred over the Bond comes down to the dial and hand styling. The 2254 pays homage to Omega's classic desi history, while the Bond borrows heavily from the Rolex Sub, thereby making the Omega Bond a derivative piece. For example, the Bond's circle and rectangle hour indices are borrowed from the Rolex Submariner, introduced in 1954. In addition, the thinness of the Bond skeleton hands mean reduced legibility in a diving environment. In contrast, the 2254's radiating hour indices and sword hands have antecedents in Omega's own design heritage, namely the late 1960s Seamaster 300, a classic dive watch in its own right. The 2254's large indices and sword hands provide significantly more legibility than the "Bond" and make the 2254 actually suitable for diving. In addition, the lack of white gold hour surrounds give the 2254 a vintage appearance, bereft o the fussy lack of white gold hour surrounds give the 2254 a vintage appearance, bereft of the fussy and metrosexual bling on the Bond's dial which contains sparkling white gold applied hour index surrounds.

What bollo#k$.
1.Does the planet ocean lack credibility as a 'tool' watch ? It has featured in bond films for as long as its been for sale (the bond was around for a few years before being worn by 007).
2.The only thing the 'bond' and the sub have in common is that they both tell the time.
3.The 'bond' is very legible - as much as the 2254? No but theres nothing wrong with it ,and if your serious about out diving your better off using a dive computer than ANY watch .
4.My 'bond (as many others are ) does not have white gold surrounds, mine are painted on.
5.I am constantly surprised at the lack of appreciation for the 'bonds' .Would there be less hostility towards the watches if they hadn't featured in the films? I believe so but that's Omegas fault not the watches. I firmly believe they are/will become classics in there own right.

[diver88]

Thank you everyone for there replies. I would most definitely like a NIB 2254 but think it would be a difficult task to find one. I just like the look of the watch more than the newer model.

it's whatever you like, I have the 2254 and would like to get the slightly blinged up version you have too. I think the version you have is quite attractive and downright dressy for a dive watch. I will attest that your new SeMP black wave dial and skeleton hands are VERY legible underwater, just saw one a couple of days ago at about 85' in the Caribbean. you decide to sell it , let me know...

the 2254 is a cool dive watch for sure,







diver88

[Fat Cat]

same again on genuine rubber

I'm loving the 2254 on the rubber strap!!

[C.L.7275]

Aside from the fact that the Omega Bond is a paid piece of movie product placement and lacks credibility as a tool watch, a primary reason the 2254 is preferred over the Bond comes down to the dial and hand styling. The 2254 pays homage to Omega's classic design history, while the Bond borrows heavily from the Rolex Sub, thereby making the Omega Bond a derivative piece.

For example, the Bond's circle and rectangle hour indices are borrowed from the Rolex Submariner, introduced in 1954. In addition, the thinness of the Bond skeleton hands mean reduced legibility in a diving environment.

In contrast, the 2254's radiating hour indices and sword hands have antecedents in Omega's own design heritage, namely the late 1960s Seamaster 300, a classic dive watch in its own right. The 2254's large indices and sword hands provide significantly more legibility than the "Bond" and make the 2254 actually suitable for diving. In addition, the lack of white gold hour surrounds give the 2254 a vintage appearance, bereft of the fussy and metrosexual bling on the Bond's dial which contains sparkling white gold applied hour index surrounds.

Here are some examples:

Bond (dial hour markers derivative of the Rolex Sub):



Vintage Sub (Note the Sub hour markers: Hours 1 - 11 are imitated on the Omega Bond)



1960s Seamaster 300



2254 (Omega pays homage to Omega's own design history, instead of Rolex's)

The first paragraph is nonsense.

[alvin]

Both are nice watches...maybe the Bond version is a bit more good looking!

[wilfreb]

the 2254 is the better.

[diver]

I have always considered my SMP 2531.80 to be a "Bond" SMP. I still love it!

regards,
Jeff

[Anon]

Both of them are great watches. In my book, the 2254.50 seems more sporty, a beater whereas the Bond one is best suited for more formal occasions. Both are great but suitable for different roles, so it depends on what you need it for. If I had to choose only one, I would go for the 2254.50...