Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

The Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm sure has been around for a good while now, and it admittedly is not the sort of Omega that's been taking headlines in recent years, but boy, have I grown to love it for all these – and a variety of other – reasons. It is not without its own quirks either, so let's see how it fares in the long run.

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

Design

Let me begin with some of those cool design elements and quirks before we talk size, wearability, and legibility. When the Seamaster 300M Chronograph is handed to you, the first things you'll probably notice are the weight, the proportions, and the way the bezel and case come together. Weight and proportions we discuss below, so let's jump to the bezel: it is that typical "scalloped" bezel seen on Seamasters before, a bezel that appears to have equal bits bitten out of it.

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

Omega say this is for enhanced grip and it does work: the 120-click bezel is easy to hold on to and turn anti-clockwise. The interesting thing is how this edge of the bezel works aesthetically with the curved polished edge that runs along the side of the case and the downturned lugs. Sometimes a bezel looks like a necessary evil that had to be incorporated into the design, a pancake with a hole in the middle, stuck on top of the watch to keep it from falling apart. This on the Seamaster 300M, I think, is one of the few instances where someone stumbled upon a combination of bezel and case that is both unique-looking and works really well.

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

Both sides of the case feature complicated-looking pushers and stuff that helps tell the world you're a retired 00 agent and/or that you're really keen on watches looking more complicated and doing more than they'd strictly need to. A most fitting example to this is how both chronograph pushers appear to have screw-down frames which are actually "fake," as they can't be turned to lock the pushers. If I was Doug Demuro, this quirk would have me screaming in excitement by now, but since I'm not, I'll just say I am not in the least impressed by these superfluous elements. This said, I do like the blue ceramic (I believe they are ceramic) rings on the chronograph pushers.

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

On the other side of the case we have a helium escape valve, an essential feature for the most serious of desk divers. The quirk here is that although it does indeed allow for unscrewing and tightening, there actually is the date corrector pusher hidden in its center. A helium escape valve with a date corrector in the middle... Definitely a worthy contender for the all-time weirdest combination of features in a luxury watch award. To its credit, the pusher works well and looks a lot better here, than those ghastly correctors set into the sides of otherwise sleek case profiles.

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

I tested it, just for fun, and the pusher does in fact function irrespective of the state of the tightening of the helium escape valve's cap. I've seen watches get a miserable 30m rating because they have corrector pushers in the side of their cases, and yet Omega somehow managed to maintain the Seamaster's 300m rating.

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

The insert of the aforementioned bezel is in blue ceramic – Omega offers the Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm in two variations. One is this blue, and there is also a black bezel and black dial version. The larger 44mm version gets a few more color combinations. The ceramic bezel is a most welcome update that just looks so much more modern and high quality when compared to metal inserts. The look of the bezel is in line with what we are used to seeing from ceramic. It can shine in bright colors if the light hitting it is powerful and "white" enough, but in other situations it can take on a flat blue look. I think most would agree that it looks considerably more high-end and impressive than metal bezel inserts.

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

The dial is in blue lacquer but done in a way all lacquer dials should be done in luxury watches. Under wide lighting conditions, the color shows a lot of depth and richness. Finally, it is a lacquered dial that isn't terribly flat and boring to look at. It actually looks close to enamel. It is also a good match with the ceramic bezel – the bezel is a bit more matte while the dial looks more "polished," but they still work neatly. The three sub-dials have a barely visible groove texture to them and do appear off-color to the blue of the dial itself, but viewed in the metal these, and even the white on black date disc, appear to blend together way more than can be seen on a lot of the images. Other design elements, features, and the movement will be discussed in their respective segments below.

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

Is 41.5mm Or 44mm The Way To Go?

That depends on a bunch of things and is for everyone to decide – we won't judge – but the most important factor of them all is probably your available wrist real estate.

In recent memory, there have been a number of Omegas that I liked more than I physically could. No, literally, so many of them are 44.25mm or larger. They are massive timepieces that not everyone, including myself, can wear either for wrist size limitations, and/or because they are too vulgar and brash for the highly developed watch-taste world of 2017. I'd say both factors are equally relevant, as far as I'm concerned.

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews
While the Seamaster in 44.25mm is technically still wearable, for frequent/everyday wear a case a few millimeters smaller can make a noticeable difference.

This is bad news for those of us who are limited to wearing smaller watches either by our tastes and preferences in watch sizes, or our narrower wrists, because a lot of the novelties by most all major brands, not just Omega, are exclusively available in larger sizes. While this Omega Seamaster 300M Chronograph isn't an all-new watch by any stretch of the imagination, I still wanted to check it out for a hands-on review to see if it's a good enough alternative to all those fancy 44.25mm models.

Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm Watch Review Wrist Time Reviews

"41.5mm" is in the very name of this watch – a practice more brands with hundreds of models in their portfolio should embrace to make the lives of their sales people and to-be customers that much easier. 41.5 doesn't sound like much, especially for a 300m diver, but who cares what it sounds like if this is, for many, the upper limit of what is comfortable to wear?

What do you think?
  • Thumbs up (42)
  • I want it! (29)
  • I love it! (20)
  • Interesting (13)
  • Classy (8)
  • Mikita

    Thank you for the review, David, but it looks ridiculous on the wrist. Maybe due to the thickness, maybe due to the proportions between the width and height (the watch is rather small for a diver, but very thick). Somehow it doesn’t work in my opinion:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4f5939a2ff3fec8eb59af2bc863793f2d0a33083baa3f2b692dea0893bd127b8.jpg

    It looks very inorganic on the wrist, almost laughable. No offense, just my opinion. Liked the review.

    • David Bredan

      Thanks for sharing! That is a good catch, precisely a shot I took to share what it looks like when the bracelet is left loose — just as I’ve highlighted in the review, it really is important getting it right. You can see the watch shifted way upwards and is sitting high, not ideal. I’ll add a caption to clarify that shot.
      It is a thick watch with a rather steep case profile and bulky bezel, but (as I mention above) the thickness didn’t bother me. When you get fitment right it doesn’t look (to me) annoyingly thick, it really is the weight that was a factor I was more often aware of.

      • Mikita

        I am strictly a non-bracelet guy, so removing the bracelet will decrease the overall weight. However, if the watch itself is too hefty – it may have an even poorer balance on the wrist when using a strap instead of the bracelet… Anyway, what I personally hate about some watches is how high do they sit on the wrist – had to pass some watches due to the thickness or protruding caseback.

        • David Bredan

          Yeah, and this has short, stubby lugs too, so I can imagine the watch winning the war against the strap and consequently flopping quite a bit. It’d also be down to the strap though, of course. This 300M was noticeably heavier even compared to my larger GS Spring Drive chronograph in steel on the steel bracelet.

      • Kuroji

        You get used to the weight after a week, as long as no sharp edges are biting, but you will never be able to use your left pants pocket again.

  • Dubbi

    Hey, David. I’m interested in buying a not too large, legible chronograph with a blue dial and steel bracelet from a respectable company for around 3-6k (grey market price). I was set on the IWC Pilot Chronograph Le Petit Prince, but I also really like this. For whatever reason, despite scrutinizing Omega’s collection, I didn’t see this — focused more on the speedmasters. Which do you prefer, and do you have any other suggestions?

    • David Bredan

      Hey there. It took me a good while to find this on the Omega website and was pleasantly surprised it was around – not just 44s everywhere… I do believe this watch should be out there a lot more, because I can imagine this 41.5 price, feature set, value, design and wearability-wise to fit a wide range of buyers who are, as things are right now, bombarded with the new high-tech stuff that’s almost always larger and much more expensive.
      Blue dial, legible, big brand, steel bracelet, affordable price – add all those together and indeed your options narrow considerably with every new criteria added.
      There are a number of model and dial variations of that IWC Pilot, some I personally like better than others, but overall I’m just not a fan; strictly for subjective reasons. I really don’t like the new comic sans-ish numerals on the updated Pilots, to me they look childish/lame in a non-funny way. Some older models had a sarif font for the indices, those look a bit more serious to me and match the Pilot watch vibe better. I’m also generally not a fan of the generic ETA 6-9-12 day+date sub-dial layout. I know these are all subjective things, so if you like them, don’t listen to me, just buy it and enjoy it for a long time!
      If I were to go IWC Pilot, I’d go non-chronograph with a more serious, slightly more purpose-focused aesthetic, like the Miramar IW324702. If you like the looks of this Omega and are OK with its foibles I mentioned in the review, I’d say go for it. I do recommend getting a micro-adjust clasp for it for the long run though.

      • Dubbi

        Thanks for the advice, but I’m a bit concerned that the seamaster is a bit too bulky. I’ll have to try them on at the NYC stores soon. What do you think of the 40mm speedmaster racing with a blue dial? https://www.omegawatches.com/watch-omega-speedmaster-racing-co-axial-chronograph-40-mm-32630405003001/ It seems like a nice watch, but it’s definitely overshadowed by the 42mm professional, which I find a bit bland with its black bezel and dial. It’s a fairly cheap (relatively speaking of course) watch, but is it considered worse than the 42mm? It has the same self-winding calible as the seamaster, with double the water resistance of the 42mm professional.

    • ProJ

      This Omega is way more practical/rugged than any of the IWC’s pilot chrono, and I am an IWC fan. I say if this fits your wrist, absolutely go for it.

    • BNABOD
      • David Bredan

        Thanks for sharing! I love those raised indices, the dark grey, sunburst dial and the less busy layout. This will run for a bit more though for its in-house movement.

        • BNABOD

          True but i did get it for what I thought was a good price 😉

          • David Bredan

            Happy to hear and congrats!! I made that remark only because @disqus_YIAxT4mzuD:disqus specified a budget 🙂

      • Again, we’ve all agreed date windows like that are stupid. Please stop.

        • BNABOD

          You alright , going to make it without a coronary today ?

  • Afenestra

    I’ve got to respectfully disagree with the bezel assessment. That scalloped bezel is harder to turn than a psychotically aped-shut pickle jar with loc-tite on the threads. I’ve taken my SMP swimming and tried to turn the bezel underwater with bare hands… it was next to impossible. I couldn’t imagine trying to turn it while at any kind of depth with gloves on. I’m sitting here with it at my desk (which happens to not be underwater) and it’s still difficult. It has to be one of the least practical diving bezel designs ever.

    • David Bredan

      I’m an avid desk diver and that’s it for me, but outside the water I did find it easy to use. Ended up using it noticeably more often to time everyday stuff than I usually do (used it more often than I used the chronograph… but I still would want this over the 3-hand).

      • “I’m an avid desk diver” haha, nice one!

  • Bozzor

    I tend to be a bit cynical about Omega’s crazy range of watch variations and especially their attempts to milk the Speedmaster name, but I am very impressed by this one. Whilst a bit over-designed IMHO, it does offer a unique and attractive look, it has a ceramic bezel, great build quality, the coaxial movement, 300m water resistance and a chronograph with COSC peace of mind combined with the Omega brand and support network. And at CHF 5,400 – I have to say it comes across as a bargain, compared to the ripoff prices many other Swiss brands think they can get away with. Two thumbs up!

  • Ian john horwood

    £4000 for omega’s ugliest chronograph on the market, with 2 plastic chrono hands and 1 plastic seconds hand does not speak very well for the company does it. This is by far omega’s ugliest and worst styled watches. It is and always was an ugly duckling and was never a starter my opinion. It can never ever be taken seriously. The very fact they have managed to cheapen its ugly looks to an even greater level with some plastic hands on the dial, Must be the ugliest icing on the cake, seriously they must be kidding me.

    • Solloshi B. Hawkins

      SKX or GTFO!
      Amirite?

      • Ian john horwood

        Well i know plastic hands on a £4000 watch is a total no no, and the ugly hour & minute hand should have been binned long ago in the stone ages. The whole package should slapped with a forever asbo. I know you like your skx and i like my snxs. Since i dont hit any waves nowadays the nearest i get to waves is my shower. For me divers are redundant, and i only need 100m water resistance at most . My snxs dress watch is only 30m rated, and with its leather strap nearest it gets to water is a bit of wrist moisture, or the occasional drop of rain.

      • “Amirite” = plastic hands.

  • IanE

    I have the blue 3-hander (my first ‘serious’ watch) which I really love (and love wearing – and, as you say, the blue lacquer is stunning). If I didn’t, this would be up on my list, though I would rather have edited out the ‘false’ details. As I’m a bit of an Omega fanatic (having 4), my view may be a bit biased of course!
    p.s. ‘the sort you definitely wouldn’t want to … drop on your feet when putting it on’ : personally, if I had to drop it, that would be my preferred destination! [ouch, notwithstanding -lol]

    • David Bredan

      Thanks for sharing! As for the dropping thing, I didn’t look at it quite like that, though I’m sure by reflex I’d also try and catch with a foot! Ouch!

    • Ayreonaut

      I have one too and added the micro adjust clasp. Part number O017STZ001154.

  • #The Deplorable Boogur T. Wang

    Good review Mr. Bredan. I personally appreciate your adding your personal items/comments to the write-up ( perhaps because I agree with so many of them).

    • David Bredan

      Thanks!

  • SuperStrapper

    The review and write up was great, but only a cobranding with Arby’s could make this watch uglier.

    • David Bredan

      Thanks! I find it interesting how such a tried and borderline old-school design can to this day be still seen on such a wide scale as great / boring / ugly. I personally like it, but given the looks of the dial and especially the bracelet, I can totally understand how it can be seen as something almost-Arby’s-ugly by some. I do like it quite a lot.

      • SuperStrapper

        And to each his own is my forever axiom. I like Omega for the most part, but this model, even through its updates, seems to have been born outdated and unable to catch up. Thr bracelet design seems from an era that preceeded the originL iterationof the watch, and the dial/bezel elements all seem to be seperate idea that consolodayed on each other. As if designed by committee.

        At any rate, I don’t fault anyone’s preferences on such matters, and I would happily read excellent reviews like this one watches i dont prefer than crummy articles on watches i love. Your photography has advanced nicely as well, which certainly doesn’t hurt matters.

    • I must have this Arby’s Special Edition ChronoColumn Wheel Seamaster Speedmaster Omega you speak of!

      • SuperStrapper

        Ok, but all the cheese sauce editions have been spoken for. It was a limited time promotion.

    • Kuroji

      WE HAVE THE MEATS

  • Blue Note

    Thanks for the enjoyable read. Since I share your concern about proportions, I am surprised you didn‘t mention the thickness of the case. How comes? Not even at the very bottom in the specs.

    • David Bredan

      Thanks for sharing and glad you enjoyed the read.
      Thickness I mentioned multiple times both above (in the article) and below (in a comment reply) your comment. “The Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm is one thick watch, but what you notice more than its thickness is its weight.” I acknowledged its thickness and on Page 3 elaborated that it is because of the movement, the thickness of the front sapphire, as well as the overall more rugged construction and water proofing of the case.
      I also said I personally was much more aware of the weight of this watch than its thickness – to explain, what I meant by that was that even with winter clothing, I was never bothered by the watch getting caught on the sleeves of my clothes, so I wasn’t aware of its thickness while wearing it, but I was often aware of its considerable weight, especially so until getting the bracelet to fit just right.

      • Ayreonaut

        What is the thickness in millimeters? Is it 17.5mm?

  • BNABOD

    It is outdated in the looks department imho. The hands I never liked,skeletonized but not all the way because it is a “diver watch” so one needs lume. I do like the look of the bezel and the blue.one of the very best blues me think but overall it looks clunky to me. The sheer height to width ratio makes it stand out like a hockey puck, the bracelet wo micro adjusting clasp is a no go even though one get one direct from Omega for 140 bucks that will fit. The 9 link bracelet really adds to the 1990 look and not in a good way. It could use some modernization in the looks department in my view (which for Omega means it will be injected w steroids to bloat all measurements) . Price wise for Omega it is decent though …

  • Tea Hound

    This watch is retro without being charming, and looks like it came from the mid 80s school of watch design – never a good thing. As ever, Omega illustrates why they should never attempt to make bracelets for their watches, coming up with a look so totally uninspired that it doesn’t even raise enough feelings to be boring. For all the supposed ergonomics of the bezel, no-one would think of copying this design because it’s both odd and forgettable.

    So no, Omega, this won’t do.

    • Kuroji

      Always hated these bracelets and bezels.

    • Richard Buckalew

      hm, I find this bracelet to be absolutely beautiful. One of my favorite parts of the watch.

  • Raymond Wilkie

    N.A.F.D.W.
    3 pager eh ?

  • Middle

    I probably like (and can’t afford) Omega more than most here but I can’t stand this model and its family of collector’s editions.

  • Larry Holmack

    I wish an Omega was within my pay grade….as I love the 44 mm Omega Seamaster GMT with the blue and orange…as pictured on page 1. Plus….it would look much nicer on my wrist than the smaller 41 mm version.

    • Kuroji

      That one is a Planet Ocean.

      • Larry Holmack

        Whatever, can’t afford that one either.

        • Kuroji

          The blue ceramic one, in particular, is quite spendy.

  • Ranchracer

    Nice lume.

  • benjameshodges

    David Bredan is the best watch reviewer of 2017. Once again a thoroughly enjoyable read.

    • David Bredan

      This totally cheered me up! Thank you, I really appreciate it.

  • TrevorXM

    Always mixed feelings about these for me. Sometimes I think they’re dated, but then after reading this review and looking up the variations, it seems to me that it’s the blue that makes it seem dated, but the black ones look much more contemporary. I dislike the helium release valve which is just plain silly, but then reading the review I see that there’s a quick date button on it with gives it some use and I’m more okay with it. I always think of those ugly wavy dial versions, but this doesn’t have that and the chronograph version is a lot more engaging than the three hander. That bracelet seems excessive, but then again it must be very comfortable. And I wasn’t sold on the handset, but when I see it lume glowing, it’s pretty cool and really works. And the size at 41.5mm is just right for an average 7.5 inch wrist like mine. So I think a black chronograph would be a watch I’d like and maybe grow to love over time.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1dd99332776370e76e8842c6d9943fe79fd01a1b7bf30b80414d3f2580097e56.jpg

  • Omegaboy

    David, great review, but needs slight correction. The bezel isn`t ‘ribbed’, it’s ‘scalloped’. Ribs run vertically; scallops are where ‘scoops’ of material have been removed, leaving arc shapes.

    • David Bredan

      Thanks for the kind feedback, changed that bit.

  • “so let’s see how it fairs in the long run”
    *fares.

    • David Bredan

      Fixed, thanks.

  • What do you mean the hands are the perfect size? The hour hand doesn’t even reach.

    • David Bredan

      Reach what?

      • Not sure if serious or trolling.

  • Lincolnshire Poacher

    Not generally a fan of Sea masters. But I rather liked this.
    Only two points I want to make. As a larger wristed person, I’m perfectly happy to wear a 41.5mm watch over a 44mm one. Specially when they’re loud and multi- functional looking. But being larger wristed the blue, and proportions would work well for me. (As others have said it could sit a little fat, etc).
    I’ve just sold a watch because it had plastic hands. I bought a Borealis Sea Storm for a knock about diver. It had a lovely rounded sapphire bezel, à la fifty fathoms. It really was a great looker (and funnily enough 41.5mm) but those plastic hands, though very well shaped and proportioned, just killed it for me.

    • Mikita

      I’ve always wanted to get a diver with plongeur hands. But your comment makes me doubt now 🙂

  • Richard Buckalew

    I thought I wanted one of these until I held one. It’s really way too bulky, and the fake screw-down pushers, which I tried to unscrew, are ridiculous. This, like the time only version, is a gorgeous watch; a classic, interesting design with a very nice movement. But it’s huge, and those fake pushers really put me off.

  • Yanko

    Nice review, enjoyable read….
    Where are the bracelets for Omega made? Nicaragua?

  • Eric Guerra

    Hello David, very good review, you take very well the variant of the Diver 300 series, which is rarely mentioned even in similar regatta models and the ETZN edition, all those 44mm and 41.5mm models carry the 3330 movement (execpción GMT models that carry the movement 3603), in my case in particular I have the 44mm chrono blue dial for my height and size of the wrist, the only thing is that I think the reference of the watch to which you dedicate the article is wrong the reference for the watch 41.5mm is 212.30.42.50.03.001 because the reference you use is for the 44mm (212.30.44.50.03.001), congratulations again for the article, greetings.

  • Sukru Erisgen

    I own this watch in 44.5mm case and it is one of my favorite watches. I also own Rolex Submariner with blue dial, Longines master series retrograde, Breguet Tourbillion, Ball, and many more. I find this particular Omega to be very settled, solidly build and a classic chronometer. Helium release button is always a conversation starter. For these reasons it is on my weekly watch rotation, unfortunately I wear it once in every several months.
    I service all my watches and I assure you this watch have a solid movement.
    It is very easy to nitpick any watch, because they speak to our taste. The only feature I don’t like is the date adjuster button, since I wear it for a week every so often, I have to find a plastic pusher to adjust the date, otherwise I absolutely love this watch.

  • Mischa

    Brilliant review yet again, thanks David! A real page-turner.

  • Martin Pikna

    Hi Dave

    I really enjoyed reading about the Seamaster and absolutely understand, how you came to really like this watch.
    After I have decided to sell/trade my Perellet Seacraft Chronograph, which was my “work horse” diver and I upgraded to Rolex GMT master II. I then also purchased the Omega Seamaster Chronograph, but after seeing how small the hour markers were , compared to Maxidial,I instantly decided this watch is not for me. Few months later the bug and great online deal made me change my mind and I bought the blue face 44mm. After wearing it for a few days the watch developed this issue. The big red chronograph hand has developed slight twitch an this would be on and off, depending on how much the watch was wound. Some days smooth and some days not so, regardless on how much I would use the function. I have sent the watch back now as I prefer chronograph hand as smooth as possible and never had this problem with any Breitlings and other watches. I have since discocovered a perfect watch but the size is the issue and it is JLC Master Compressor with GMT function but the size of the watch is somewhat off putting, as my wrist are also a bit small.