Omega Seamaster 2234.50 (GMT) vs IWC AT2000Ti ref 3538 as a daily driver?

[mattjmcd]

I have an IWC Aquatimer 2000Ti as one of my main 2 daily-wear watches ( the other is an MBII ) and I really like it. It wears light, and with its internal bezel it is relatively easy to wear under the cuff of shirtsleeves when necessary. The bracelet is perhaps the best ever. And of course it has a touch of pedigree.

Recently I've been wanting to add an Omega Seamaster GMT to the mix. I like it because it has decent WR, it's a good size for me and my thin 6.7" wrist, and it has a relatively low profile bezel. It's also a GMT, which would fill a gap in my small collection. Prices are decent and money is not an issue.

I am on the fence because I am wondering if the 2 watches are similar enough that one would displace the other in the regular rotation. Granted, I *have* an AT2000Ti now, and I do like it a lot. I am also an IWC fan of sorts. But I wonder... if I didn't have the IWC already, and if I were eyeballing both watches with the intention of getting only one of them, which one would I get? Which would you go for? Why?

Here's a pic of the Aquatimer:



I don't have any pics of the Omega, but take a look here:

OMEGA Watches: Seamaster 300 M GMT - Steel on steel - 2234.50.00

[mpalmer]

I dunno. I respect both, but would probably buy neither. If I owned one, I would not see myself selling it to obtain the other if that meant paying more to obtain it. I also doubt I would buy the other if I owned one. If I were upgrading to a Rolex Sub or something, sure I'd make a move. However, if I had to pick between one of these two, I suppose I'd go for the Omega. I would do so because I am not fond of titanium watches because of their propensity of acquire a lot of scratches. I also like the weight of steel as it feels more formidable.

[jwalther]

Don't know if you've ever tried the Omega on for size, but the GMT is relatively thick. My wrist is about the same size as yours, and I didn't like the way it sat on my wrist.

[Brendan12]

Personally the IWC has a better image (ie stinkin' rich, genuinely active, classy) while these days Omega is for Audi driving w***k**s

[ken_sturrock]

Personally the IWC has a better image (ie stinkin' rich, genuinely active, classy) while these days Omega is for Audi driving w***k**s

Wide Kids? Wild Kids? Worn Kats? That's the problem with turning offensive words into stars - they loose all impact. Maybe you should try to rephrase your superfluous, uninformed and overly-broad insult and try again...

Back to the original question. No, I don't think the IWC pictured above and a Seamaster GMT are at all alike other then they are technical looking watches. One thing to keep in mind about the Seamaster GMT is that it is definitely a dive watch. Although not ridiculous, it has dive watch weight, thickness, bezel and looks. Also, the white model at least, is very visually bold - it is not a watch to stay hidden under your cuff.

I like my Seamaster GMT (white) but stopped wearing it day-to-day because it didn't fit my day-to-day dressing style and I realized that I'm just not really a dive watch-guy. Rather, I'm more of an obnoxious chronograph guy...

Although I'm a big fan of the Seamaster GMT, I wouldn't swap your IWC for it, nor do I think one would replace the other - they are very different watches.

Best of luck.

[Dr Pepper]

Just get the Seamaster and keep the Aquatimer, since you did say money is not an issue.

I don't believe the Seamaster will displace the Aquatimer because since their styling is so different.

If you really have to choose one, then I'd say Omega since its GMT mechanism works like Rolex's (independent hour hand instead of independent GMT hand on 2893), and sometime down the road you can consider buying the Aquatimer back or getting a current-production model.

[Brendan12]

Wide Kids? Wild Kids? Worn Kats? That's the problem with turning offensive words into stars - they loose all impact. Maybe you should try to rephrase your superfluous, uninformed and overly-broad insult and try again...

Back to the original question. No, I don't think the IWC pictured above and a Seamaster GMT are at all alike other then they are technical looking watches. One thing to keep in mind about the Seamaster GMT is that it is definitely a dive watch. Although not ridiculous, it has dive watch weight, thickness, bezel and looks. Also, the white model at least, is very visually bold - it is not a watch to stay hidden under your cuff.

I like my Seamaster GMT (white) but stopped wearing it day-to-day because it didn't fit my day-to-day dressing style and I realized that I'm just not really a dive watch-guy. Rather, I'm more of an obnoxious chronograph guy...

Although I'm a big fan of the Seamaster GMT, I wouldn't swap your IWC for it, nor do I think one would replace the other - they are very different watches.

Best of luck.

Worn Kats? Cool, very cool. Is that how Omega fans talk?

[ken_sturrock]

Worn Kats? Cool, very cool. Is that how Omega fans talk?

Why yes it is! Now that you know the secret language, you can join us! So do it! Buy one! Buy an Omega!

[georges zaslavsky]

the seamaster gmt gets my nod and my vote as well, the calibre 1128 is far more accurate than IWC's versions of the 2892-a2 and the gmt is a very discrete and elegant watch

[Lord Monocle]

I dunno. I respect both, but would probably buy neither. If I owned one, I would not see myself selling it to obtain the other if that meant paying more to obtain it. I also doubt I would buy the other if I owned one. If I were upgrading to a Rolex Sub or something, sure I'd make a move. However, if I had to pick between one of these two, I suppose I'd go for the Omega. I would do so because I am not fond of titanium watches because of their propensity of acquire a lot of scratches. I also like the weight of steel as it feels more formidable.

I wouldn't call trading that pretty unique-looking IWC for the watch everybody else in line at Starbucks is wearing an upgrade, but that's just me.