# Omega Seamaster 300M size comparison



## longplay (Sep 27, 2017)

Not entirely sure which section this belongs in, so here it goes.

Among other things, I have been considering a quartz 300M as a beater, and wondered if the mid-size would work. I got a chance to try them both on yesterday and thought I would add a comparison for those thinking about it.










For scale, I have a roughly 6.75" wrist.

The mid-size doesn't look too bad in the photos, but looked and felt very small on (and I'm someone who generally likes smaller watches). It was significantly lighter than the 41 though (these were both autos). I'd definitely opt for the larger of the two.

Anyway, hope that helps others.


----------



## gimli (Mar 24, 2016)

Honestly, I feel like both variants look very good and I would be fine with wearing either.

I'd say that it's just a matter of which one you like the most but the "small" one doesn't look too small if you ask me.


----------



## artistmike (May 13, 2006)

I'm like you in that I have fairly slim wrists but have found that the design of both case and bracelet makes the larger size model Seamaster extremely easy and comfortable to wear... Having said that I do also wear smaller watches and like Gimli agree that the smaller version looks great too, which could be a bonus if price was a major factor ....


----------



## NOTSHARP (May 2, 2018)

To me, the mid-size looks spot on, for your wrist.

Steve.


----------



## marley (Dec 22, 2012)

My wrist is 18 cm ish..

I first bought a mid sized S.M.P. but found it too small.the full sized one however...is perfect! Looks great (I.M.H.O. anyway!), and feels great on the wrist.

I find photos can be a bit mis-leading sometimes..as (at least in my opinion!)..watches always appear larger looking than in real life, on "wrist shots".


----------



## relaxer7 (Feb 18, 2016)

the smaller one looks just right on your wrist


----------



## Padders (Oct 21, 2008)

I have had both. The mid size was too small for my 7.25" wrist but more than how it felt on the wrist was how it looked. The thick bezel means that there is very little dial area so the hands look stumpy whereas the 41mm looks much better. The dial area on the 41mm is basically exactly the same as the 36mm dynamic gen 3, meaning that the 36mm SMP must be similar to a ~32mm ladies watch dial! If resale is any kind of consideration then the full size is much better on that score too.


----------



## richy176 (Aug 7, 2013)

Both looked fine on your wrist in the photos but as you preferred the full size then it just goes to show that you need to try them on before buying. Full size would be easier to sell in the future and hold price better - unless fashion changes


----------



## artistmike (May 13, 2006)

richy176 said:


> unless fashion changes


 It always does, that's why it's called fashion .... Style, is a horse of a different colour ... :biggrin:


----------



## richy176 (Aug 7, 2013)

artistmike said:


> It always does, that's why it's called fashion .... Style, is a horse of a different colour ... :biggrin:


 Maybe I should have said `until' rather than `unless' :bash:


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

longplay said:


> Among other things, I have been considering a quartz 300M as a beater


 An Omega 300M as a beater...? :swoon: I am - quite literally - not worthy mate, and I bow to your superior spending power :notworthy:

But for what it's worth, I think the 41mm model looks perfect. The 36mm version would look perfect... on a child :laughing2dw:


----------



## chocko (Nov 9, 2008)

36.25 go by weight as well


----------



## PC-Magician (Apr 29, 2013)

As we can see from the above replies opinions vary, either should be fine as long as YOU like it.

I have the 41mm Auto Bond version and they do wear very well so I wouldn't worry if you go for the larger version having said that I will happily wear anything from 33mm up to 44mm they all look great, currently wearing my CW 43mm Trident.

I wish you luck in your decision. :yes:


----------



## futuristfan (Sep 13, 2009)

I was going to suggest you look at a pre bond 200 but looking at the current prices perhaps not as a beater :laugh:


----------



## martinzx (Aug 29, 2010)

I love them both, I have the 41mm automatic, but would happily have either. :thumbsup:


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Big one every-time!


----------



## aleo (Nov 4, 2015)

I prefer the 41mm version.


----------



## Daveyboyz (Mar 9, 2016)

It's a great beater, despite the cost, because they are a very durable watch...

I had a full size mechanical chronograph and I found it a bit heavy and uncomfortable, I really didn't get on with it... and I have owned a couple of mid-sized and found them great watches. The thing with the size is that you just get used to it... I used to wear a watch solidly for a month or two and sell it off my arm for the next one, often a watch was too big or small but within a couple of weeks it became normal again. Within a range this will always be the case, so both get my thumbs up.


----------



## RoddyJB (May 11, 2008)

It would be the 41 or none for me... :watch:

I'd have to agree with @Davey P, a Seamaster 300m as a beater??? :notworthy:


----------



## Noob101 (Mar 24, 2017)

I wear the midsize as my everyday watch and could not be happier, but my wrist is only 6". I think both look good on you to be honest. I always tend to aim small for comfort, although heavier watches don't usually bother me (the Seamaster Pro is a heck of a chunk of steel).

The great thing about this watch is that I have learned it is virtually indestructible making it perfect for a beater. I whacked mine on pretty much anything you can think of and it looks like a battle-scarred veteran but it still works like a charm. I did have to have the crown replaced this year (it's a late 90s model and I bought it pre-owned, but 20 years with no repairs is pretty good in my book) and I am confident that was not because it was worn out but because a watchmaker I gave the watch to in order to adjust something else messed it up somehow.

The quartz option is great. It's incredibly accurate and doesn't ever need adjusting which is very convenient because I don't like fiddling with the screw down crown, particularly because water resistance is very important to me.

Aesthetically the Seamaster is a very attractive watch and that is also important in choosing an everyday wearer. I just love looking at it even after years of owning it! I am a 90s kid so it definitely has the James Bond connection and effect for me (a lot of the grandads on the forum will probably have this association with the Sub instead :tongue: ). It's also instantly recognisable and I like that because many people associate it with being professional, meaning I can wear it to the beach or wear it to work - perfectly universal!

Anyway I should probably shut up about the Seamaster but it really is my favourite watch :clap: :clap: The only thing I will say is that having owned both colour schemes I like it better in black.


----------



## Cassie-O (Apr 25, 2017)

@JonnyOldBoy I never ever thought I would buy one let alone two autos, but I did thanks to the naughty members of TWF. :thumbsup: :king:

I have a small wrist and I can wear a larger watch without it looking out of place. Had to say you gents have got great taste in watches, that's why I choose to buy gents watches more than ladies because of the great size and style. :king:


----------



## Daveyboyz (Mar 9, 2016)

Agreed... I got on much better with the three hand models...



DarthSmavid said:


> The Chrono is much thicker than the standard 3 hand


----------



## longplay (Sep 27, 2017)

@marley I agree, IRL the mid-size was a lot smaller than the photo suggests. It's actually about the same size as Kinetic I wore for years, but the larger bezel and dark dial make it feel smaller I think.

@Padders Also agree. I did like the weight of the mid-size, much more manageable for a daily wearer.

@Davey P Maybe I should clarify that I would be looking pre-owned, and the current thinking is to have two watches: a daily wearer that's dressy and something a bit tougher for 'sportier' pursuits. With only two it makes sense to invest in better quality, provided it can take a knock. That plan may change though!


----------



## RoddyJB (May 11, 2008)

JonnyOldBoy said:


> I wear mine as a daily .... they are very well built.... I only swap it out on machinery days when I am keeping my hand in picture framing and thanks to @themysterybidder I have my G-Shock ... ( thats ONE Casio Cassie...... , did you hear that !? ONE !!!! :laugh: )
> 
> 300Ms are perfect daily wearers... :thumbsup:


 @JonnyOldBoy Only in my dreams will I ever own a 300M but I have to admit, if I did, I likely would never take it off!!! :yes:


----------



## degsey (Mar 17, 2011)

I have tried both on during a visit to a AD and found the smaller on looked very small to me. The 41 did look large but looked good on my 6.75 wrist. The photos don't show how they look in real life.


----------



## longplay (Sep 27, 2017)

I tried a Longines Conquest VHP in 41mm, and there were 43mm (I assume) Conquests in the case -- they looked gargantuan.










Obviously very different price points, but this felt light (possibly due to it being quartz) and tinny after the Seamaster.


----------



## russelk (Nov 14, 2017)

I think the 36.25mm one looks a little too small for your wrist and the full-size looks better. I too prefer smaller watches, but as many have said, the full-size Seamaster wears smaller than most other full-size dive watches. My wrist is pretty much like yours and I think 38mm is the minimum size I can get away with before it starts to look like I'm wearing on of my wife's watches!


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

I think the 36.25mm version looks fine. I think if the bracelet disappears behind it because the watch head covers the wrist, you've lost some of the artistry of the watch. I suppose I'm old-fashioned in that sense, I don't believe dive watches should be huge chunky things that you "feel" on your wrist.


----------



## russelk (Nov 14, 2017)

Chromejob said:


> I think if the bracelet disappears behind it because the watch head covers the wrist, you've lost some of the artistry of the watch.


 That's a good point, I never thought of it that way. Watches are definitely too big these days, and have been for a while now. I think the trend might be starting to reverse though, Breitling's new range is smaller than the previous generation. Hopefully more brands will follow. Many people do like huge chunky watches with "wrist presence" though.


----------



## Salt (May 20, 2018)

Both looks good on your wrist, but if I were you, I will go for 41mm because of more wrist presence and perhaps will hold better value.


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

russelk said:


> That's a good point, I never thought of it that way. Watches are definitely too big these days, and have been for a while now. I think the trend might be starting to reverse though, Breitling's new range is smaller than the previous generation. Hopefully more brands will follow. Many people do like huge chunky watches with "wrist presence" though.


 True, the Breitlings that have appeared in my local Costco stores aren't much larger than my 40mm Mk II divers, which feel perfect on my wrist.


----------

