It has been over one year since my last review of Rolex Datejust I, and three years since my review of Omega Seamaster 300, the watch that has striking resemblance with this Seamaster 1957 version. As someone who has a relatively small wrist (6.5 inch), the 41mm size of Seamaster 300 has been a little annoyance to me, with the lug extending slightly beyond my wrist’s bone. Even after cutting the bracelet to the minimum allowable, it is still wear slightly too large for my wrist.
Hence, I was excited when in Baselworld 2017 Omega decided to release the Seamaster, Speedmaster and Railmaster limited edition version with smaller case size and a tribute to the 1957 version of each watch. The speedmaster 38mm is indeed a nice addition to the speedmaster family, but it is too similar in my taste with the 39mm Speedmaster FOIS (numbered edition). Meanwhile, the Railmaster just does not appeal me at all (I would personally rather have 36mm Rolex Explorer or even 38mm Aqua Terra) due to its water resistance.
On the other hand, the Seamaster 1957 is a completely different beast compared with the other Seamaster family. Classic and understated, yet polished with all the new 21st century technology (anti-magnetic feature and higher standard of accuracy) and capability to survive heavier water activity. Just like the submariner, the seamaster is designed as the all-around watch. Now, let’s take a look at the actual watch and my personal opinion about it.
First, the boxing is nice and feel solid, although I would personally appreciate smaller box rather than larger and sophisticated box like this. The Seamaster logo is embosed on the top of the watch box, and on the inside you would find the watch itself and a carrying case with the spring bar remover and two extra straps. The packaging caters to the vintage look of the watch and it does feel high quality, whoever is in charge of advertising this Seamaster 1957 must have think it thoroughly.
The carrying case supplies you with one NATO strap, one brown leather strap, spring bar removal tool (and few extra spring bar inside it). It also has a designated pocket to store the watch, although I tend to think that the profile of people who bought this watch are those traveling with only one watch at the time, the one on his wrist. No complain here, but I wish Omega also include a soft cloth to wipe off the smudges with this set.
Compared with Seamaster Professional version, the Seamaster 1957 is much more shiny due to its polished nature of the case and outer part of the bracelet. And this make the watch much harder to photograph in various lighting conditions.
As of the time I wrote this, I have been wearing the Seamaster 1957 for over three weeks, cycling around Montreal, kayaking, going to work, etc. The bracelet is very comfortable, and just like the Seamaster 300, it allows you to micro adjust the size with the slider on the clasp. This is important in hot weather, when I want to wear my watch looser than usual.
The cool thing about Seamaster 1957 META certification is that you could register your watch at Omega website and see the various details of testing applied to your particular watch. Mine shows that the average daily deviation is 1.2 second/day, which is within 0-6 seconds/day limit.
While I would not call this is a “slim” watch, it is certainly not intimidating and easily slip under my sleeves when I need to dress up. And of course, I could always switch to Jaeger LeCoultre Reverso 976 when needed.
Now, let’s see how the watch looks like under day-to-day activities.
I hope you noticed the reflective glare by now, see the picture below if you haven’t.
The bezel of Seamaster 1957 could be rotated clockwise and counter-clockwise, unlike Seamaster 300. This allow me to use it either as a simple time marker or as a second time zone indicator. In terms of the smoothness, it rotates in a more rigid way than the Seamaster 300.
And this one is under bright sunlight.
The pricing is a little bit on the high side compared to previous Omega version (on par with Rolex Submariner), but considering the feature and “limited edition” tag on it, I think its fair enough.
What is the conclusion then? Well, to me the Seamaster 1957 nails every part of my checklist and it is a better fit to my wrist than my previously owned Seamaster 300. The design is more classic and understated compared to the much more polished Seamaster 300. Few years down the road, the Seamaster 1957 could be one of the most significant piece in my collection due to its sentimental value, bought after finishing my graduate study and the beginning of my career overseas.
Enough with the talking, the adventure is waiting ahead!