back to top

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

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

Legibility

Up there with the best, thanks to a variety of reasons difficult to predict from official images. I have developed a preference for watches with differently shaped main hands – I look at watches where the hour and minute hands are the same shape just different sizes and I immediately feel something is off but it takes time for me to realize that is what’s putting me off (one of the few notable exceptions is this Grand Seiko).

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

Another charm of smaller cased watches is that the hands tend to fit perfectly, as they do here – there often is a limit to the size of the hands that can be fitted onto a watch because of the strain they put on a movement, which in turn results in large watches having small hands, and I’ll spare you an analogy here. With this Seamaster 300M Chronograph, not only are the hands the perfect length and width, but are also easy to distinguish not just from each other, but also the dial itself.

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

Something not always visible on images or in real life is how the frame of the main hands is highly reflective. I was impressed when I was walking through a bit darker section of a street (easy to do when it gets dark by 4PM here in Budapest) and the hands reflected back all of the muted yellowish light that was available. This comes in handy when the lume is not charged – which, again, can happen easily when it’s dark outside and the watch is hidden under the coat’s sleeve.  In fact, it is one of the best performances in legibility I have seen in a while. Contrast between hands and dial surface and contrast between hand sizes and shapes are the very key to good legibility.

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

Lume on the hands and indices is torch-like for a short while after it’s been charged and remains charged for as long as every watch with high-end lume does. As is normal for Seamasters, the minute hand and the pip in the bezel are green while the rest of the markers and hands light up in blue-ish green – on this particular piece the two colors are actually not that different. Last but not least, the domed sapphire crystal received strong anti-reflective coatings on both sides, rendering it definitely one of the better crystals out there and a good match for a sturdy tool watch like the Seamaster 300M chronograph.

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

The Omega Caliber 3330 Movement

The Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm features the Omega Caliber 3330, which, as those familiar with Omega caliber numbers will know, is a heavily modified base ETA 7753. The 3330 is an automatic chronograph with a column wheel (considerable upgrade over the cam-system of the 775x range), with Omega’s Si14 silicon balance spring in its free-spring balance wheel, and with 52 hours power reserve.

Advertisement

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

Part of the thickness of the Seamaster 300M Chronograph comes from its extremely sturdy case – you can feel the crystal is very thick and so is the caseback – and part of it is from the movement. It is a relatively narrow movement that is a good fit for the 41.5mm case, but with its automatic winding and date, it does have some thickness to it. An appreciated detail is how the Seamaster 300M Chronograph 41.5 is a COSC-certified chronometer. Overall accuracy of the Seamaster 300M for the time that I’ve had it was a couple seconds too fast per day, on average.

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

Traces of the 7753 legacy can be found in the previously discussed corrector pusher at the 10 o’clock position, set inside the helium escape valve, as well as the thickness of the caliber and hence the watch itself. Last is how the minute counter of the chronograph, found inside the 3 o’clock sub-dial, does not jump at the end of each timed minute but rather sweeps – I personally prefer jumping chronograph minutes, but this surely doesn’t make that much difference. The way the chronograph hands are color matched red to separate them from the main time display is another appreciated, thoughtful detail.

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

Three more notes regarding the date mechanism: the 3330 incorporates a quick date change, meaning the advancement of the date disc happens between at about 11:50pm and 00:05am – up to two hours faster than on most common mechanical movements. The other quirk is how, although a corrector pusher is used, the crown does feel as though it snaps into a first position upon pulling it out after unscrewing it, and only after that does it move into the second position where the main hands can be set. Last, for a chronograph watch the date disc is as close to the surface of the dial as it can possibly be, something that allows for an easy reading of the date – with the added benefit of it looking tidy up there where it belongs, and not further down in the bowels of the watch.

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

As seen here, if you don’t get the bracelet sized exactly right, the weight of the watch will pull it down and/or towards one edge of the wrist.

Summary

The Seamaster 300M Chronograph 41.5mm truly isn’t the watch that’s been making headlines recently, but that shouldn’t make any difference. Not everyone has or wants to spend 8 to 10 thousand on a watch (or more), but many do very much turn to the big brands to get their dose of functionality, durability, timeless design and yes, a recognizable luxury name.

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

The Seamaster 300M in this variation – or with a black dial and bezel – I think is one of the best all-rounder watches offered today in its segment. It does most everything you’d want it to do – COSC accuracy, rugged construction, cool and nicely executed steel bracelet and clasp, ceramic bezel, high-end dial, good legibility, tried and proven movement, chronograph, quick changing date, silicon hairspring… and a timeless look with the proportions it deserves.

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

Along with all these strong points you’ll want to consider its considerable weight and its sensibility to getting the bracelet sized just right – pushing your AD to get you a micro-adjust clasp might not be a bad idea. If I had to wear just one watch for the rest of my life, I’m not convinced this would hands down be the one, but it would be among those few I’d want to choose from.

Price for the Omega Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm is 5,400 CHF with taxes. omegawatches.com

Necessary Data
>Brand: Omega
>Model: Seamaster 300M Co-Axial Chronograph 41.5mm 212.30.44.50.03.001
>Price: 5,400 CHF
>Size: 41.5mm wide
>Would reviewer personally wear it: Yes.
>Friend we’d recommend it to first: Friend who prefers choosing one high-quality, all-rounder item that he plans on using for long.
>Best characteristic of watch: One of the best all-rounders out there. Proportions, size, classic looks, functionality, legibility, and quality of execution.
>Worst characteristic of watch: Really heavy. Frustrating diver’s extension. Clasp very much needs a micro-adjust.

Explore

Comments

Disqus Debug thread_id: 6319696568

  • 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.

  • Art Leyenberger

    Nicely done, David. I look forward to your thorough and enjoyable reviews. On this Seamaster chrono, I like everything except the plastic hands on the counters.

  • cm

    just perfect!!!!!
    actually one of the best watches I have worn. The rolls have impeccable application and excellent quality construction. very good presentation. I will definitely buy it.

  • Drop files here or
    Accepted file types: jpg, png.