IWC AQUATIMER AUTOMATIC 2000 (REF IW358002) vs Omega SEAMASTER 300 OMEGA MASTER CO-AXIAL 41 MM "SPECTRE" Limited Edition

Hello all,
This is my first post on the IWC forums, just to let you all know, I am am pretty much an amateur when it comes to these time pieces.

I was looking to buy one of the following
1. IWC AQUATIMER AUTOMATIC 2000 (REF IW358002)
2. Omega SEAMASTER 300 OMEGA MASTER CO-AXIAL 41 MM "SPECTRE" Limited Edition

I currently own an IWC AQUATIMER CRONOGRAPH (with the rubber strap, Ref - IW376803) and absolutely love it, so am a little more inclined to buying another IWC. However I was hoping some one with a little more knowledge on the subject could tell me the difference between the two and which one would be a better buy.

a) mechanically which is better:
First and foremost I would like to know which of the two is a better caliber, the omega 8400 or the IWC 80110 (this perhaps would be a really stupid question, but I am new here). I am not really so enamored by the whole "limited edition" omega, I would just want to know which one is a better time piece.

b) are they worth their price tag:
The omega, because of its limited edition is a bit more expensive (~8K USD) than the standard seamaster 300 (~7K USD), however the IWC is close to ~10K, so here's the question which one of the two is more worth its price and which one would you buy.

I did get a chance to check out the omega, and my first impressions were...
I didn't really like the nato strap too much (I'll probably switch it out with the metal bracelet) because I am used to the rubber strap of the IWC which is really comfortable and felt more solid.
The time piece is also smaller (41mm), which seemed odd all of a sudden, but it looked really nice. (these is just my opinions of course)
I haven't really got a chance to check out the IWC yet.

www.ablogtowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/OMEGA-Seamaster-300-SPECTRE-Limited-Edition-aBlogtoWatch-71.jpg

Thanks for any help in advance, I appreciate it.

Difficult question at an IWC forum. I guess both watches are first class, so from a technical point of view there is no reason to prefer the one over the other.

However, there are practical issues with size. The IWC is 46mm wide and 20,5mm thick, the Omega is 41mm wide and 15mm thick. My guess is that the Omega is the more wearable watch of the two, where you may have problems with the IWC fitting nicely under the cuff of a shirt: 2 cm height is a lot.

According to some, the Omega is an instant classic by looks. The IWC looks nice enough but may not be that popular, probably because of its height. I cannot remember one forum member showing his new Aquatimer 2000, but there may be a few around.

Kind regards,
Paul

My first question is what is your intended use for the watch? If you are looking for a good dive watch for recreational, no-decompression scuba diving, then either one is a great choice (as is your 3768). If you are needing a serious dive watch for professional use at very deep depths, then the IWC 2000 would be the better choice. As for movements, both are fantastic but the Omega has a longer power reserve and touts a high resistance from magnetic fields. My IWC 80111 (almost the same as the 80110) has been extremely accurate and I love the quick, almost instant date change. You have an option for a bracelet with the Omega but I do not believe one is available (at least not in titanium) for the IWC Aquatimer 2000. The IWC does comes with two different sets of rubber straps, however. There are also differences in size, as Paul mentioned, so there are a number of things to consider. Both are probably fairly priced and if you can afford either one I wouldn't let the price be the deciding factor. I just like the IWC better;)

Both watches may have been designed around same thing (diving), but they do it in a far different ways. For starts, IWC is, size wise, beast of the watch. It's designed to be impregnable at any depth for a diver (let's remember, world record for a scuba diver is around 320m) and it's size states that. For that kinda watch, you need a proper bone size in your wrist so i recommend that you try it first.

Omega is far more elegant for everyday use. It's very versatile, it goes well with leather, metal or NATO, and you can get away with it pretty much anywhere: tux, shorts or even flip flops. Design wise, its all up to you, but i think that vintage timeless look is fantastic. As a dive watch...don't think so. It's full of polished surfaces witch are a scratch magnet and the 'Spectre' edition does not have unidirectional bezel (let's not forget the lack of bezel pearl). Go for the standard SM300 Master if you wish to put it on neoprene.

Movements - both fantastic and in-house engines, although i like the fact that 8400 has 60+h PR and that antimagnetic properties. But than again, i very much like the Pellaton and the look of 80000 family of IWC ;)

I think whatever you do, you will be very pleased. But, the most important thing is to try them on. It wouldn't be great if you bought IWC without seeing it, and than realized that you can't fit it under your cuff...

I am really impressed with the responses. I really enjoy the knowledge shared, and even more so, the objectivity and unbiased opinions. It's really refreshing. Thanks for providing some good reading material!

I am curious to see which direction the pendulum has swayed.

Here's what I can tell you on the mechanical aspect :

The IWC 80110 caliber is very nice, although it based on the 7750 from ETA. It has been modified a lot though, only the winding up and hand setting mechanism are the same. The Omega caliber is fully in house manufactured, so I'd give Omega a little bit more credit.
However, we're talking about co-axial here. On paper, it is a really efficient escapement but as a watchmaker I can tell you to avoid that.
I know some fellow watchmakers working for the Omega after-sales service and from what I've understood it's a nightmare to service. Apparently it is so bad that platforms just sends these to the manufacture because they don't want to deal with it. Some people don't have any issues with it and for others it's just pure misery.

I'm not saying that because I work for IWC, I look at it on a purely objective and technical way (I don't even own a watch).

You work for IWC? And the 80110 is based on the Valjoux 7750? Are you sure about that? I had thought the 80110 was 100% in-house. The Pellaton automatic winding system is not eta or Valjoux so what from the winding system is?

A pellaton winding module is mounted instead the ETA winding system.

The most of this cal. is ETA stuff.

BTW: My Omega Seamaster 300 is the most accurate watch I have ever had and totally anti magnetic.

I have bought the Omega, because it is state of the art in silicon technologie and has a Inhouse cal. for a really good price.

Thank you Heiko. So when you say "most of this cal. is ETA stuff" you are talking about the design features of the movement that is then manufactured fully in-house, correct?

I don´t think so, because it makes really no sense to produce in different "houses".

That would just increase costs !

Production "somewhere" based on IWC specs.

Ben, yes I'm sure about that.
What I said "winding up mechanism" I meant the manual winding up mechanism (even if you have a self-winding movement doesn't mean you can't wind it up manually but I'm sure you all know that :)). We usually include it in the hand setting mechanism as they are part of the same "organ" so to speak. I didn't mean the self-winding or automatic module by it.
Some parts are identically looking while not being compatible with the 7750 but a part of the gear train is the same. I don't think it makes the 80110 a lesser good movement as they took the best parts of a movement that is absolutely legendary and added their own sauce to it.

Then, about accuracy in general : I think it's mostly some kind of lottery.
If you look at the COSC certification, it requires a daily rate δ (largest positions difference) within 4-6 seconds depending of the diameter of the movement. So if you have -1s in one position and +5 in another you're still having COSC certified watch.
Now the watch making industry wants us to believe that a tourbillion is more accurate, that a duomètre from JLC is more accurate than most mechanical watches but it isn't true unfortunately.
I witnessed the same daily rate on all positions on a watch only once on my entire career and that is why I call that a sort of lottery.

This discussion - IWC cal 80110 vs. Valjoux 7750 - has now been ongoing for more than 10 years.

I think the statement "most of this cal. is ETA stuff" is grossly misleading. Anybody who has followed this discussion over the years knows that IWC used the Valjoux driving gear train design as a template when they designed cal 80110. However, that does not mean that "most of it is ETA stuff". A similar driving gear train design does not make 80110 a "Valjoux based" movement. There is much more to the movement than that.

Look at the exploded-view drawings that can be found in the 'net. Most of the stuff is not similar. Also, parts between IWC 80110 and Valoux 7750 are not interchangeable.

Realy, 10 years ?!

So, it must be an interesting topic.

It is not important to me, only some answers to those who are not since 10 years on the forum, sorry.

I have many ETA based IWC models in my collection, but not these modern models.

"Most of it is ETA stuff" is absolutely false indeed, but so is "parts between IWC 80110 and Valjoux 7750 are not interchangeable". Even though they aren't meant to be interchangeable, a few of them are 100% compatible and would be perfectly functioning.

This is really fascinating information! I truly appreciate the horological lesson provided. Going back to which watch, I think that between both watches, the Omega does offer considerably more practicality. It is a looker, too. Of the new Aquatimers I much prefer the aesthetics of the Cousteau edition over the 2000. That's just my humble two cents.