|
|
Post by earthphase on Jul 9, 2018 8:06:56 GMT -8
I am not a fan of Seiko discontinuing the MM300, just to change some colors and re-release it as a LE (now 2, Green and Zimbie) with no substantial upgrades just to jack up the price.
Money grabs piss me off.
I would almost feel better if they just said "Listen, we way under priced the awesomeness of the SBDX017, so from now on we are going to sell it at $3k".
Am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by 59yukon01 on Jul 9, 2018 8:25:04 GMT -8
Supposedly in the fall there's a black dial replacement coming out, and it's not a LE or SE.
I'm glad I picked up my used 001 when I did. Not digging the partially lumed ceramic bezel, removing the Marinemaster text, and as far as a supposedly sapphire upgrade goes......a big whoop dee doo from me.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3Pedals6Speeds on Jul 9, 2018 16:40:11 GMT -8
Haven’t they also saddled it with the Prospex ‘X’ on the dial?
|
|
|
|
Post by 59yukon01 on Jul 9, 2018 16:42:38 GMT -8
^^^Yes that to. I'm not an X hater, but don't like, or can't un-see it, on previous models that never had it before.
|
|
HiBeat
Global Moderator
SEIKO Iko Iko GDTRWS
Posts: 8,685 
|
Post by HiBeat on Jul 9, 2018 18:19:32 GMT -8
Relax on the "X" boys. Times change. It's like changing the Tudor Rose to the Tudor Crest. I prefer the rose by a mile but the crest means its more current. Good for both.
|
|
|
|
Post by saul on Jul 10, 2018 2:26:01 GMT -8
Relax on the "X" boys. Times change. It's like changing the Tudor Rose to the Tudor Crest. I prefer the rose by a mile but the crest means its more current. Good for both. Agree to disagree. I prefer the Rose but the Crest is still classy. The Prospex X is just...a little cheesy. |
|
Myles
Needs a Life!
Posts: 2,059
|
Post by Myles on Jul 10, 2018 17:45:59 GMT -8
The Prospex X is just...a little cheesy. I don't like it, either. However, if it's any consolation, I think it's actually a "P" crossed with an "S", for Pro spex. |
|
|
|
Post by saul on Jul 10, 2018 17:48:43 GMT -8
The Prospex X is just...a little cheesy. I don't like it, either. However, if it's any consolation, I think it's actually a "P" crossed with an "S", for Pro spex. By Jove you're right! That explains why it is such an odd looking X. I think now I actually dislike it just a teeny bit less. Still wouldn't want it on the dial of a $3000 watch though...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 11:28:23 GMT -8
Vote with your pockets I say
|
|
|
|
Post by joeobrien on Jul 12, 2018 2:01:16 GMT -8
People have been bitching about lack of sapphire and ceramic on the MM for years. Seiko finally did it. Also, to say they're not 'substantial upgrades' isn't really true - they're two features that people expect on a dive watch at the original MM's price.
The price of the SLA019 does seem a bit high (£2900 in the UK vs £2250 for the SBDX017), but hopefully when they release the regular versions (reportedly one in black and one blue) the price will be a bit lower.
As for the aesthetics of the new version, I find that the Prospex logo isn't as offensive as I thought it might be. It's just small symbol on an otherwise great dial. I would prefer they kept the Marinemaster text, but it wouldn't be a dealbreaker. One issue I do have with the SLA019 is that the silicone strap they provide is just a bog-standard one that you get with any Prospex diver now, not the waffle-style that came with the original MMs. Seiko and their cost-cutting, I guess.
This is the second time since yesterday I've seen someone accuse Seiko of a 'money grab', as if there was any other reason for a massive corporation to exist. The other was on WUS, where a guy said that the SLA025 was a 'money grab' to fool naive collectors. As if Seiko wasn't giving people exactly what they want in both instances.
|
|
|
|
Post by saul on Jul 12, 2018 3:09:13 GMT -8
This is the second time since yesterday I've seen someone accuse Seiko of a 'money grab', as if there was any other reason for a massive corporation to exist. The other was on WUS, where a guy said that the SLA025 was a 'money grab' to fool naive collectors. As if Seiko wasn't giving people exactly what they want in both instances.
It is hysterically funny to characterize any of this as a "money grab". As you point out, making money is the reason the business exists, but the notion of a "money grab" implies a huge corporate windfall. This ain't that, it's just product in the channel and is still only a very small part of their overall revenue stream. |
|
|
|
Post by earthphase on Jul 12, 2018 6:14:36 GMT -8
defined as....
"an undignified or unprincipled acquisition of a large sum of money with little effort"
Sounds about right to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by joeobrien on Jul 15, 2018 1:07:15 GMT -8
But you even imply in your first post that you'd feel better about it if Seiko simply increased the price of the current model without doing anything to it! That would be a money grab. They're upgrading the watch and charging more for it, as they should. There's nothing 'undignified' or 'unprincipled' about it. It's business as usual.
So, to answer your initial question - Yes, you're wrong  |
|
Sam
Newb
Posts: 34
|
Post by Sam on Jul 16, 2018 0:29:38 GMT -8
People have been bitching about lack of sapphire and ceramic on the MM for years. Seiko finally did it. Also, to say they're not 'substantial upgrades' isn't really true - they're two features that people expect on a dive watch at the original MM's price.
The price of the SLA019 does seem a bit high (£2900 in the UK vs £2250 for the SBDX017), but hopefully when they release the regular versions (reportedly one in black and one blue) the price will be a bit lower.
As for the aesthetics of the new version, I find that the Prospex logo isn't as offensive as I thought it might be. It's just small symbol on an otherwise great dial. I would prefer they kept the Marinemaster text, but it wouldn't be a dealbreaker. One issue I do have with the SLA019 is that the silicone strap they provide is just a bog-standard one that you get with any Prospex diver now, not the waffle-style that came with the original MMs. Seiko and their cost-cutting, I guess.
This is the second time since yesterday I've seen someone accuse Seiko of a 'money grab', as if there was any other reason for a massive corporation to exist. The other was on WUS, where a guy said that the SLA025 was a 'money grab' to fool naive collectors. As if Seiko wasn't giving people exactly what they want in both instances.
UK price of £2250?? That seems very high. I bought mine from a German seller last year for Euro 1680 all in, which is currently about £1500...... Perhaps I was lucky with the timing...... However, i have no issue with the Hardlex - I think it looks great. I would maybe like ceramic as I have put hairline scratches on the bezel, but there is something about the lacquered effect - I think it looks so much better than the usual ceramic bezels...... if only replacements were more reasonably priced..... But I always think it unfair to state that a Dive watch is expected to have sapphire and ceramic. This has been debated many times and I am of the opinion that the materials used on the MM300 suit a tool watch. less chance to shatter which is what it is all about at depth or moving kit on the boat. But that is merely my humble opinion.... |
|
|
|
Post by joeobrien on Jul 16, 2018 4:06:01 GMT -8
£2200-ish is the UK retail price from authorized dealers for the SBDX017 (not the 001), perhaps you bought from a grey seller? Ideally the new upgraded, non-limited versions would retail at about £2500, but since Seiko's LEs tend not to cost much more than non-limited versions then I'd expect them to be near enough the £2900 of the SLA019.
I totally agree that the lacquered (or whatever it is) bezel of the SBDX017 certainly looks much nicer than ceramic - the SLA019 bezel is noticeably duller. I'm not sure if it's even possible for ceramic to mimic that look. Maybe the new black model will have a nice shiny ceramic bezel, but it probably won't look much like the original. In my wildest dreams they would keep the original insert, but have a sapphire insert on top of that. That way you get the scratch resistance without losing the wonderful hue of the lacquer. That's just fantasy, but I'd be interested to know what the cost difference of that would be, compared to a ceramic insert.
I don't think it's that dive watches in particular are expected to have sapphire & ceramic, it's just that any watch over a certain price is expected to have higher-end features like that these days.
Personally I don't buy the 'shatter' thing. The argument for dive watches is that if you're diving and you smack a hardlex, it'll just crack rather than shatter. But if you crack the hardlex, isn't the watch compromised anyway? As in, it'll probably start letting water in if you're diving, and if it happens out of the water, then you're not going to take the watch diving anyway because it's been compromised.
But seriously, how many people have ever shattered a sapphire crystal, let alone one that's about 3mm thick? And even if they have, how many scratches or gouges has it prevented before that? It's well worth it. There's a famous interview with a Seiko designer who goes over the reasons for not using sapphire. The main reason was cost. He readily admitted that sapphire was preferable, but the relative strength of a thick hardlex was sufficient, relative to the high cost of an equivalent sapphire.
|
|
Mr.Jones
Needs a Life!
Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,679
|
Post by Mr.Jones on Jul 16, 2018 4:19:30 GMT -8
No, Hardlex usually scratches instead of cracking. A sapphire is much more likely to shatter. I really think Seiko intended the MM300 as a true diver's watch, and therefore used Hardlex.
|
|
Sam
Newb
Posts: 34
|
Post by Sam on Jul 16, 2018 4:59:56 GMT -8
£2200-ish is the UK retail price from authorized dealers for the SBDX017 (not the 001), perhaps you bought from a grey seller? Ideally the new upgraded, non-limited versions would retail at about £2500, but since Seiko's LEs tend not to cost much more than non-limited versions then I'd expect them to be near enough the £2900 of the SLA019.
I totally agree that the lacquered (or whatever it is) bezel of the SBDX017 certainly looks much nicer than ceramic - the SLA019 bezel is noticeably duller. I'm not sure if it's even possible for ceramic to mimic that look. Maybe the new black model will have a nice shiny ceramic bezel, but it probably won't look much like the original. In my wildest dreams they would keep the original insert, but have a sapphire insert on top of that. That way you get the scratch resistance without losing the wonderful hue of the lacquer. That's just fantasy, but I'd be interested to know what the cost difference of that would be, compared to a ceramic insert.
I don't think it's that dive watches in particular are expected to have sapphire & ceramic, it's just that any watch over a certain price is expected to have higher-end features like that these days.
Personally I don't buy the 'shatter' thing. The argument for dive watches is that if you're diving and you smack a hardlex, it'll just crack rather than shatter. But if you crack the hardlex, isn't the watch compromised anyway? As in, it'll probably start letting water in if you're diving, and if it happens out of the water, then you're not going to take the watch diving anyway because it's been compromised.
But seriously, how many people have ever shattered a sapphire crystal, let alone one that's about 3mm thick? And even if they have, how many scratches or gouges has it prevented before that? It's well worth it. There's a famous interview with a Seiko designer who goes over the reasons for not using sapphire. The main reason was cost. He readily admitted that sapphire was preferable, but the relative strength of a thick hardlex was sufficient, relative to the high cost of an equivalent sapphire.
I bought (sbdx017 in April 2017) from an AD with full seiko worldwide warranty card, so no grey dealer, although as long as I get a proper warranty card, it makes little difference to me. And whilst I don't have the knowledge to dispute your reasoning that Seiko used Hardlex mainly for cost, I was able to purchase a sapphire crystal for my SBBN015 for £50, so they cant cost that much. Anyway, I love mine, warts and all, and I like to think Seiko chose the materials as they perform the best as opposed to providing what people expect a higher-end watch to have. To me, the MM300 provides a wonderful example of functionality that also looks superb  |
|
|
|
Post by 59yukon01 on Jul 16, 2018 5:37:55 GMT -8
£2200-ish is the UK retail price from authorized dealers for the SBDX017 (not the 001), perhaps you bought from a grey seller? Ideally the new upgraded, non-limited versions would retail at about £2500, but since Seiko's LEs tend not to cost much more than non-limited versions then I'd expect them to be near enough the £2900 of the SLA019.
I totally agree that the lacquered (or whatever it is) bezel of the SBDX017 certainly looks much nicer than ceramic - the SLA019 bezel is noticeably duller. I'm not sure if it's even possible for ceramic to mimic that look. Maybe the new black model will have a nice shiny ceramic bezel, but it probably won't look much like the original. In my wildest dreams they would keep the original insert, but have a sapphire insert on top of that. That way you get the scratch resistance without losing the wonderful hue of the lacquer. That's just fantasy, but I'd be interested to know what the cost difference of that would be, compared to a ceramic insert.
I don't think it's that dive watches in particular are expected to have sapphire & ceramic, it's just that any watch over a certain price is expected to have higher-end features like that these days.
Personally I don't buy the 'shatter' thing. The argument for dive watches is that if you're diving and you smack a hardlex, it'll just crack rather than shatter. But if you crack the hardlex, isn't the watch compromised anyway? As in, it'll probably start letting water in if you're diving, and if it happens out of the water, then you're not going to take the watch diving anyway because it's been compromised.
But seriously, how many people have ever shattered a sapphire crystal, let alone one that's about 3mm thick? And even if they have, how many scratches or gouges has it prevented before that? It's well worth it. There's a famous interview with a Seiko designer who goes over the reasons for not using sapphire. The main reason was cost. He readily admitted that sapphire was preferable, but the relative strength of a thick hardlex was sufficient, relative to the high cost of an equivalent sapphire.
He admitted sapphire was preferred "only if" it could be made as thick as their hardlex, which is cost prohibitive. That's where people get caught up/sold on sapphire and always assume it's the better choice. Doubtful many of the watches that have sapphire, especially micro brands, offer that. So all sapphires are not created equal. |
|
|
|
Post by earthphase on Jul 16, 2018 6:12:37 GMT -8
If a regular production model comes out in the fall, it will be interesting to see changes if any and what the retail price will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by joeobrien on Jul 25, 2018 9:34:39 GMT -8
Update: Seiko India and Austria have both put up information about the new upgraded MM300s, SLA021 (black) and SLA023 (blue). They're both the same prices as the SLA019 in those markets, so you can expect that whatever the SLA019 retailed at in your country, the new models will probably be the same. Release around October.
|
|
