You could do what I did - get the original NATO strap, as made by Phoenix - the original supplier to the MoD. The Omega strap is a copy of this.
A veritable bargain at £12 inc. postage. And fitting is a doddle too, no need to fear scratching your watch case as long as you don't have fists made of ham.
In the flesh, verdict, daddy wants. The bracelet is super tacky and not well thought out, so the NATO is the way to go. I expected the NATO to be a bit more robust, not sure how it will handle the weight of the watch. What's interesting is the OMEGA NATO's second keeper actually slides up and down since it's not stitched down, which I think a good fix to the issue of keeping the strap in place.
In the flesh, verdict, daddy wants. The bracelet is super tacky and not well thought out, so the NATO is the way to go. I expected the NATO to be a bit more robust, not sure how it will handle the weight of the watch. What's interesting is the OMEGA NATO's second keeper actually slides up and down since it's not stitched down, which I think a good fix to the issue of keeping the strap in place.
I thought it might have been shown at Basel on NATO (believe a new model of it was shown on leather at the show). Wonder if this means the watch on NATO wont be its own model and will have to simply be purchased on bracelet and then NATO separately. Guess too early to know. Def looks better off that bracelet which I did not like at all when I saw it in Omega boutique
In the flesh, verdict, daddy wants. The bracelet is super tacky and not well thought out, so the NATO is the way to go. I expected the NATO to be a bit more robust, not sure how it will handle the weight of the watch. What's interesting is the OMEGA NATO's second keeper actually slides up and down since it's not stitched down, which I think a good fix to the issue of keeping the strap in place.
I thought it might have been shown at Basel on NATO (believe a new model of it was shown on leather at the show). Wonder if this means the watch on NATO wont be its own model and will have to simply be purchased on bracelet and then NATO separately. Guess too early to know. Def looks better off that bracelet which I did not like at all when I saw it in Omega boutique
I don't know why, but I am just not keen on this watch at all.
I usually like Omega's offerings too (apart from the awful tie-in monstrosities).
It just looks grey, and bland, and utterly forgettable.
I think their pricing nowadays is a bit ridiculous too. Yeah I know, co-axial this and anti-magnetic that, but come on...
Omega used to be a watch that a regular guy could aspire to with a bit of hard work and money saving...No chance now, not a new one anyway.
I got dragged out shopping with the wife yeaterday and ended up coming home with the new SM300 on a Nato!
A couple of interesting things came up while i was in the Omega shop. It turns out some of their stores are franchised to Goldsmiths where as some are owned and run by Omega. The manager told me that they dont have any nato's in store at the minute but that the non franchised ones should. Being a franchise, they currently had a 4 week waiting list for the natos (which have also gone up in price to £139 from £110 according to him). Luckily I had purchased mine in New York.
The sales assisstant and manger reffered to it as 'The new Bond watch' and confirmed that to their knowledge, it is a case of buying it and adding the strap seperate.
I don't know why, but I am just not keen on this watch at all.
I usually like Omega's offerings too (apart from the awful tie-in monstrosities).
It just looks grey, and bland, and utterly forgettable.
I think their pricing nowadays is a bit ridiculous too. Yeah I know, co-axial this and anti-magnetic that, but come on...
Omega used to be a watch that a regular guy could aspire to with a bit of hard work and money saving...No chance now, not a new one anyway.
I'm totally with you on this - the new SM300 Master Co-axial is a very bland watch, marketed on it's return to the spirit of the original aspect. I don't get it - it's nothing like the original:
The original was a 38mm case as opposed to the 41mm being marketed now and apart from a similarity in the face numerals and markings, the rest of the watch is nothing like the 1957 original.
I think Omega see themselves as being the only mass-market rival to Rolex and so they're pricing themselves accordingly. The average of around £4000 for a new watch is far from aspirational for most people these days, that segment is being filled increasingly by Tag now. However, buying new isn't the best option unless you've got cash to splash and there's something great about buying a lightly used watch at around 30-50% off the original selling price. Would you rather have a new Tag at £2500 or a great used Omega at £2500? I know my money would go on the used Planet Ocean or Aqua Terra any day.
On the topic of the price of Bond's wristwatches, I'd like to quote an excerpt from a post I made back in 2013:
It's not product placement itself that bugs me - it's that it's become so insanely out of touch that it's actually affecting my enjoyment of the character. I do like that the character of Bond likes to indulge himself in nice things from time to time, but the Fleming's character was a guy who treated gambling proceeds as 'found' money he could spend on selfish things for himself (like a new Bentley), or otherwise was wined-and-dined on the company dime during a mission. In other words, he was believable.
Fleming wrote that Bond had an annual salary of £2,000 in 1955, which is about £40,000 in 2013, or about $62,500. For a single guy with no dependents and who lived a great deal of time 'on the job', all expenses paid, a $1200 watch is an easy purchase (not to mention that it's possible that it was company issue, anyway. Didn't Rolex used to supply military?)
Today, though, a modern Submariner's MSRP ranges from $7500-$8500. Without gambling proceeds to help him out, Bond would certainly think twice about spending more than ten percent of his annual salary on a wristwatch!
My point in all this is to suggest that we can't look at the luxury lifestyle of Fleming's Bond as a yardstick to justify the current character's lifestyle. Fleming's Bond had expensive tastes, but they weren't outrageous. In Skyfall, Bond wears three sets of cufflinks that total around $10,000 in price! (Hard to say exactly because one pair was made for the film and not for general sale, so I'm 'valuing' that pair as being in the same ballpark as the others). Ridiculous. I enjoy my Bond to be a little more believably down-to-Earth.
On the topic of the price of Bond's wristwatches, I'd like to quote an excerpt from a post I made back in 2013:
It's not product placement itself that bugs me - it's that it's become so insanely out of touch that it's actually affecting my enjoyment of the character. I do like that the character of Bond likes to indulge himself in nice things from time to time, but the Fleming's character was a guy who treated gambling proceeds as 'found' money he could spend on selfish things for himself (like a new Bentley), or otherwise was wined-and-dined on the company dime during a mission. In other words, he was believable.
Fleming wrote that Bond had an annual salary of £2,000 in 1955, which is about £40,000 in 2013, or about $62,500. For a single guy with no dependents and who lived a great deal of time 'on the job', all expenses paid, a $1200 watch is an easy purchase (not to mention that it's possible that it was company issue, anyway. Didn't Rolex used to supply military?)
Today, though, a modern Submariner's MSRP ranges from $7500-$8500. Without gambling proceeds to help him out, Bond would certainly think twice about spending more than ten percent of his annual salary on a wristwatch!
My point in all this is to suggest that we can't look at the luxury lifestyle of Fleming's Bond as a yardstick to justify the current character's lifestyle. Fleming's Bond had expensive tastes, but they weren't outrageous. In Skyfall, Bond wears three sets of cufflinks that total around $10,000 in price! (Hard to say exactly because one pair was made for the film and not for general sale, so I'm 'valuing' that pair as being in the same ballpark as the others). Ridiculous. I enjoy my Bond to be a little more believably down-to-Earth.
Yes! SpectreBlofeld, you hit the nail on the head of exactly what I was thinking. Every single thing he uses or wears is insanely expensive in the Daniel Craig films to the point of being ridiculous.
It is so out of control now that it is basically a luxury goods marketing executives wet dream.
If Omega ever bow-out he will probably end up in a Patek Philippe or a Richard Mille or something.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,769Chief of Staff
I wouldn't say everything DC wears in the film is insanely expensive, the Zara stuff was cheap enough - if you could get your hands on it !
To be fair though, I DO want Bond to wear expensive clothes/watches...I just want bigger wages so I can buy them too
Isn't Brioni (all of Brosnans era of suits) on level terms cost wise with Tom Ford (poss even more $$)
I guess we could also argue the case that are we mere viewers not supposed to even be aware of the cost of what he is wearing clothes wise, I'm sure we are supposed to just think he looks great and not ID and tally up his cufflinks, suits etc
Im sure 99.9% of Bond viewers aint got a clue what he is wearing bar the obvious Omega (who prob fund a chunk of the film) - we are simply more hardcore fans!! My mates consider themselves 007 fans, have all the movies etc but they would not have a clue what he wears on his feet etc
I guess if only 007 had kept those Casino Winnings from Skyfall!
My point in all this is to suggest that we can't look at the luxury lifestyle of Fleming's Bond as a yardstick to justify the current character's lifestyle. Fleming's Bond had expensive tastes, but they weren't outrageous. In Skyfall, Bond wears three sets of cufflinks that total around $10,000 in price! (Hard to say exactly because one pair was made for the film and not for general sale, so I'm 'valuing' that pair as being in the same ballpark as the others). Ridiculous. I enjoy my Bond to be a little more believably down-to-Earth.
SpectreBlofeld really has a point here, and I think one other thing to consider is that the James Bond of the books would buy expensive stuff (suits etc) but would keep it for God knows how long, whereas the DC character changes his entire wardrobe between one film and the next. Literary Bond seems to wear the same navy suit, white shirt and black knitted tie most of the time, while DC is like a Hollywood actress, frequently wearing something once only for it never to be seen again.
On the topic of the price of Bond's wristwatches, I'd like to quote an excerpt from a post I made back in 2013:
It's not product placement itself that bugs me - it's that it's become so insanely out of touch that it's actually affecting my enjoyment of the character. I do like that the character of Bond likes to indulge himself in nice things from time to time, but the Fleming's character was a guy who treated gambling proceeds as 'found' money he could spend on selfish things for himself (like a new Bentley), or otherwise was wined-and-dined on the company dime during a mission. In other words, he was believable.
Fleming wrote that Bond had an annual salary of £2,000 in 1955, which is about £40,000 in 2013, or about $62,500. For a single guy with no dependents and who lived a great deal of time 'on the job', all expenses paid, a $1200 watch is an easy purchase (not to mention that it's possible that it was company issue, anyway. Didn't Rolex used to supply military?)
Today, though, a modern Submariner's MSRP ranges from $7500-$8500. Without gambling proceeds to help him out, Bond would certainly think twice about spending more than ten percent of his annual salary on a wristwatch!
My point in all this is to suggest that we can't look at the luxury lifestyle of Fleming's Bond as a yardstick to justify the current character's lifestyle. Fleming's Bond had expensive tastes, but they weren't outrageous. In Skyfall, Bond wears three sets of cufflinks that total around $10,000 in price! (Hard to say exactly because one pair was made for the film and not for general sale, so I'm 'valuing' that pair as being in the same ballpark as the others). Ridiculous. I enjoy my Bond to be a little more believably down-to-Earth.
Yes! SpectreBlofeld, you hit the nail on the head of exactly what I was thinking. Every single thing he uses or wears is insanely expensive in the Daniel Craig films to the point of being ridiculous.
It is so out of control now that it is basically a luxury goods marketing executives wet dream.
If Omega ever bow-out he will probably end up in a Patek Philippe or a Richard Mille or something.
Connery's Bond wore Savile Row suits. How many "average blokes" had their suits made by Anthony Sinclair?
But it is a fact that as the rich have become much richer that luxury goods are much more expansive because, in effect, the prices of luxury brands are being bid up. OTOH average goods are much quality now than they were 40-50 years ago.
And if you want a truly great Omega, buy a classic off of Ebay. You can get a great looking automatic from the '60s in good shape for less than a thousand dollars.
Isn't Brioni (all of Brosnans era of suits) on level terms cost wise with Tom Ford (poss even more $$)
I guess we could also argue the case that are we mere viewers not supposed to even be aware of the cost of what he is wearing clothes wise, I'm sure we are supposed to just think he looks great and not ID and tally up his cufflinks, suits etc
Im sure 99.9% of Bond viewers aint got a clue what he is wearing bar the obvious Omega (who prob fund a chunk of the film) - we are simply more hardcore fans!! My mates consider themselves 007 fans, have all the movies etc but they would not have a clue what he wears on his feet etc
I guess if only 007 had kept those Casino Winnings from Skyfall!
Now about his cars....
I agree. Bond is supposed to wear/drive/use the best, whether it's a gadget-filled Aston Martin. some hokey fantastical gear, a nice suit or a fancy watch, he's expected to always look great whether he's at a dinner party or jumping out of a plane. That's part of the magic of Bond. As Welshboy says, Aston Martin/Omega aside, few people outside of this and similar boards would have a clue whether he's wearing a Brioni or a Ford or even care. They might mentally say "That's a nice suit" but they're not going to ID it as a $7k suit and take offence.
Bond is a fantasy from start to finish with bits of glamour thrown in. It's a big part of the appeal and I think few people look at it and say "That's ridiculous that a civil servant can wear $10,000 worth of cufflinks" but readily accept that Bond can deftly fly any helicopter/plane/submarine/sports cars, never get recognised despite rarely wearing disguises, constantly be taken prisoner by the bad guys and yet always, always escape because the bad guys just love to tell him their entire plan before killing him...and also save the world single-handedly....over and over again.
Given the choice between the British government developing an invisible car and the British government providing a spy with an expensive watch, suit and cufflinks when he's on an undercover mission, I think I know which one I find slightly more plausible!
Totally agree with this, Bond is a fantasy after all. Closer to reality now with DC doing his thing, but still a movie (Book) character...
I think Skyfall had the mix spot on, some high end stuff but also some very attainable (again for those who want to / seek it out as fans) gear.
Whilst I personally can find the funds for AM's / Omegas etc, I don't have the desire to spend £3k on a TF suit (well I do but can't justify it). But I have saved and bought some special TF / Billy Reid / others from the last 3 films. Then on top of that a load of Magnoli ties, all of Dans jackets and a host of alternative stuff so I can dress aka JB...
Surely that's what its all about ???
Nobody says you have to buy it, but its nice if you do (all or just one special piece), and its a good style to replicate. Especially if you happen to be the age of the current Bond. Pretty sure my clothes days may end if a younger actor takes up the role ???
And back on thread, if anyone has an Omega dealer in the UK nearby, that happen to have a NATO in stock, can someone pick me up a Nato 21-22mm (Ref 031szs002053)...
And back on thread, if anyone has an Omega dealer in the UK nearby, that happen to have a NATO in stock, can someone pick me up a Nato 21-22mm (Ref 031szs002053)...
If not I'm off on a 100 mile round trip !!!
M
You tried some of the Omega dealers who are happy to post?
Places that come to my mind that I've used for Omega in UK are Banks Lyon, Pleasant and Harper etc
And yeah, sure we'll be pointed at like someone in a light blue safari suit would be today )
You might have more luck of them having them in stock at shops owned and operated by Omega and not franchised out. How you tell the difference i dont know but i am positive that Bond Street and The Royal Exchange in london are Omega's. I think it is a 3-4 week wait otherwise.
And yeah, sure we'll be pointed at like someone in a light blue safari suit would be today )
You might have more luck of them having them in stock at shops owned and operated by Omega and not franchised out. How you tell the difference i dont know but i am positive that Bond Street and The Royal Exchange in london are Omega's. I think it is a 3-4 week wait otherwise.
Ta, just going to ring a few tomoro, pot luck I guess. No dash really as only going on my CR PO until we see what they do nearer Nov. If nothing will get a SM 300 to go with the strap. If they bring it out I'll have a spare / replacement strap -{
Comments
Any pictures on a wrist? Looks awesome!
I thought it might have been shown at Basel on NATO (believe a new model of it was shown on leather at the show). Wonder if this means the watch on NATO wont be its own model and will have to simply be purchased on bracelet and then NATO separately. Guess too early to know. Def looks better off that bracelet which I did not like at all when I saw it in Omega boutique
I don't know why, but I am just not keen on this watch at all.
I usually like Omega's offerings too (apart from the awful tie-in monstrosities).
It just looks grey, and bland, and utterly forgettable.
I think their pricing nowadays is a bit ridiculous too. Yeah I know, co-axial this and anti-magnetic that, but come on...
Omega used to be a watch that a regular guy could aspire to with a bit of hard work and money saving...No chance now, not a new one anyway.
A couple of interesting things came up while i was in the Omega shop. It turns out some of their stores are franchised to Goldsmiths where as some are owned and run by Omega. The manager told me that they dont have any nato's in store at the minute but that the non franchised ones should. Being a franchise, they currently had a 4 week waiting list for the natos (which have also gone up in price to £139 from £110 according to him). Luckily I had purchased mine in New York.
The sales assisstant and manger reffered to it as 'The new Bond watch' and confirmed that to their knowledge, it is a case of buying it and adding the strap seperate.
Excuse the pic quality. Iphone 4.
4 years intrest free credit in the franchised stores.
I'm totally with you on this - the new SM300 Master Co-axial is a very bland watch, marketed on it's return to the spirit of the original aspect. I don't get it - it's nothing like the original:
The original was a 38mm case as opposed to the 41mm being marketed now and apart from a similarity in the face numerals and markings, the rest of the watch is nothing like the 1957 original.
I think Omega see themselves as being the only mass-market rival to Rolex and so they're pricing themselves accordingly. The average of around £4000 for a new watch is far from aspirational for most people these days, that segment is being filled increasingly by Tag now. However, buying new isn't the best option unless you've got cash to splash and there's something great about buying a lightly used watch at around 30-50% off the original selling price. Would you rather have a new Tag at £2500 or a great used Omega at £2500? I know my money would go on the used Planet Ocean or Aqua Terra any day.
It's not product placement itself that bugs me - it's that it's become so insanely out of touch that it's actually affecting my enjoyment of the character. I do like that the character of Bond likes to indulge himself in nice things from time to time, but the Fleming's character was a guy who treated gambling proceeds as 'found' money he could spend on selfish things for himself (like a new Bentley), or otherwise was wined-and-dined on the company dime during a mission. In other words, he was believable.
Let's take the price of a Rolex Submariner in 1957: $150 USD, according to this chart: http://minus4plus6.com/PriceEvolution.htm
According to this calculator (http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm), that's about $1,247.83 in 2013 dollars.
Fleming wrote that Bond had an annual salary of £2,000 in 1955, which is about £40,000 in 2013, or about $62,500. For a single guy with no dependents and who lived a great deal of time 'on the job', all expenses paid, a $1200 watch is an easy purchase (not to mention that it's possible that it was company issue, anyway. Didn't Rolex used to supply military?)
Today, though, a modern Submariner's MSRP ranges from $7500-$8500. Without gambling proceeds to help him out, Bond would certainly think twice about spending more than ten percent of his annual salary on a wristwatch!
My point in all this is to suggest that we can't look at the luxury lifestyle of Fleming's Bond as a yardstick to justify the current character's lifestyle. Fleming's Bond had expensive tastes, but they weren't outrageous. In Skyfall, Bond wears three sets of cufflinks that total around $10,000 in price! (Hard to say exactly because one pair was made for the film and not for general sale, so I'm 'valuing' that pair as being in the same ballpark as the others). Ridiculous. I enjoy my Bond to be a little more believably down-to-Earth.
Yes! SpectreBlofeld, you hit the nail on the head of exactly what I was thinking. Every single thing he uses or wears is insanely expensive in the Daniel Craig films to the point of being ridiculous.
It is so out of control now that it is basically a luxury goods marketing executives wet dream.
If Omega ever bow-out he will probably end up in a Patek Philippe or a Richard Mille or something.
To be fair though, I DO want Bond to wear expensive clothes/watches...I just want bigger wages so I can buy them too
I guess we could also argue the case that are we mere viewers not supposed to even be aware of the cost of what he is wearing clothes wise, I'm sure we are supposed to just think he looks great and not ID and tally up his cufflinks, suits etc
Im sure 99.9% of Bond viewers aint got a clue what he is wearing bar the obvious Omega (who prob fund a chunk of the film) - we are simply more hardcore fans!! My mates consider themselves 007 fans, have all the movies etc but they would not have a clue what he wears on his feet etc
I guess if only 007 had kept those Casino Winnings from Skyfall!
Now about his cars....
SpectreBlofeld really has a point here, and I think one other thing to consider is that the James Bond of the books would buy expensive stuff (suits etc) but would keep it for God knows how long, whereas the DC character changes his entire wardrobe between one film and the next. Literary Bond seems to wear the same navy suit, white shirt and black knitted tie most of the time, while DC is like a Hollywood actress, frequently wearing something once only for it never to be seen again.
Connery's Bond wore Savile Row suits. How many "average blokes" had their suits made by Anthony Sinclair?
But it is a fact that as the rich have become much richer that luxury goods are much more expansive because, in effect, the prices of luxury brands are being bid up. OTOH average goods are much quality now than they were 40-50 years ago.
And if you want a truly great Omega, buy a classic off of Ebay. You can get a great looking automatic from the '60s in good shape for less than a thousand dollars.
I agree. Bond is supposed to wear/drive/use the best, whether it's a gadget-filled Aston Martin. some hokey fantastical gear, a nice suit or a fancy watch, he's expected to always look great whether he's at a dinner party or jumping out of a plane. That's part of the magic of Bond. As Welshboy says, Aston Martin/Omega aside, few people outside of this and similar boards would have a clue whether he's wearing a Brioni or a Ford or even care. They might mentally say "That's a nice suit" but they're not going to ID it as a $7k suit and take offence.
Bond is a fantasy from start to finish with bits of glamour thrown in. It's a big part of the appeal and I think few people look at it and say "That's ridiculous that a civil servant can wear $10,000 worth of cufflinks" but readily accept that Bond can deftly fly any helicopter/plane/submarine/sports cars, never get recognised despite rarely wearing disguises, constantly be taken prisoner by the bad guys and yet always, always escape because the bad guys just love to tell him their entire plan before killing him...and also save the world single-handedly....over and over again.
Given the choice between the British government developing an invisible car and the British government providing a spy with an expensive watch, suit and cufflinks when he's on an undercover mission, I think I know which one I find slightly more plausible!
I think people forget this. Yes its become more serious / has more realism of late but don't kid yourselves {[]
I think Skyfall had the mix spot on, some high end stuff but also some very attainable (again for those who want to / seek it out as fans) gear.
Whilst I personally can find the funds for AM's / Omegas etc, I don't have the desire to spend £3k on a TF suit (well I do but can't justify it). But I have saved and bought some special TF / Billy Reid / others from the last 3 films. Then on top of that a load of Magnoli ties, all of Dans jackets and a host of alternative stuff so I can dress aka JB...
Surely that's what its all about ???
Nobody says you have to buy it, but its nice if you do (all or just one special piece), and its a good style to replicate. Especially if you happen to be the age of the current Bond. Pretty sure my clothes days may end if a younger actor takes up the role ???
-{
1. CR. 2. TSWLM. 3. LTK. 4. GF. 5. SF.
If not I'm off on a 100 mile round trip !!!
M
1. CR. 2. TSWLM. 3. LTK. 4. GF. 5. SF.
Ha - maybe our DC era clothes will be more ridiculed then Moores in years to come..
You tried some of the Omega dealers who are happy to post?
Places that come to my mind that I've used for Omega in UK are Banks Lyon, Pleasant and Harper etc
Will give them a try tomoro !
And yeah, sure we'll be pointed at like someone in a light blue safari suit would be today
1. CR. 2. TSWLM. 3. LTK. 4. GF. 5. SF.
You might have more luck of them having them in stock at shops owned and operated by Omega and not franchised out. How you tell the difference i dont know but i am positive that Bond Street and The Royal Exchange in london are Omega's. I think it is a 3-4 week wait otherwise.
Ta, just going to ring a few tomoro, pot luck I guess. No dash really as only going on my CR PO until we see what they do nearer Nov. If nothing will get a SM 300 to go with the strap. If they bring it out I'll have a spare / replacement strap -{
1. CR. 2. TSWLM. 3. LTK. 4. GF. 5. SF.
That's a frightening thought looking in my wardrobe
1. CR. 2. TSWLM. 3. LTK. 4. GF. 5. SF.
Nobody does it better -{