Read my latest IWL blog entry! An Ode To Rule Breaking
Welcome back!!!
I disagree
Too thin, I think that’s probably more of a personal preference thing, but they feel quite wide at the base, commensurate with the markers, and while I can see the argument that the hands are short relative to the width of the dial, I think they’re at the perfect length to do the task set forth by the placement of the indices. The tip of the minutes hand is slightly thinker than the minute markers, but the length of them, so nothing gets covered that shouldn’t be covered, the seconds hand is longer still, which gives it differentiation from minutes had, and the hour hand extends far enough that it’s clear which markers it’s indicating, without being so long that it can be confused at a glance with the minutes hand. Aesthetically, I think probably more personal than some of us, myself included, would like to admit, but from a legibility and functionality standpoint, I don’t think they’ve put a foot wrong with the hands.
Read my latest IWL blog entry! An Ode To Rule Breaking
^^^
Agreed. The hands are just right in relation to the indices, which is what matters. The watch is pretty faithful to the 1956 original.
![]()
Cheers,
Richard
Cheers,
Richard
When I look at the Baltic,I realized that my preference for hands are more like that than following Omega's standard....thus the omega seems too short....
Sent from my SH-S40P using Tapatalk
They did make some nice watches. Wonder if there will be some fire sales.
![]()
Last edited by Cybotron; Feb 7, 2025 at 06:02 PM.
Cheers,
Richard