Omega Speedmaster 38: Too Good to be True – or Too Thick And Too Expensive?

Few of our recent posts have generated this much of a response. More than 9,000 likes, hundreds of comments from Italy, Brazil, France, the USA and Kuwait – and a debate that shifted within hours from the watch itself to the question of how honestly it was being covered. We take the arguments raised by our community seriously and ask: which points of criticism are justified, and which are not?

One Omega, two camps

It is rare for a watch to divide a community as completely as the new Omega Speedmaster 38. On one side were comments such as “Such a beauty”, “Best colorway for sure” and “38 mm perfect spot”, along with dozens of reactions focused above all on the new five-row bracelet. On the other was a single, concise question that attracted more than 100 likes, making it the most-liked comment beneath the post: “38 mm tall?”

That set the tone. From “Super chunky” and “Hockey puck” to “15 mm di spessore, un tombino” – one Italian commenter likened it to a manhole cover – the case thickness dominated the comments in every language. One contributor put it more diplomatically: “it is tall, yes. But also beautiful”.

Because the discussion became so concentrated on this single point, we followed up with a second post: a short reel showing the watch on the wrist, with its measurements displayed on screen – 38 mm in diameter, 14.75 mm thick, 44.96 mm lug-to-lug, and worn on an 18.5 cm wrist. That post did not end the debate, but it did make it more precise. And that is exactly why it is worth examining the arguments one by one.

Case thickness: where the criticism is justified

Let us begin with the obvious: the criticism of the 14.75 mm case thickness is fundamentally justified. We said as much in our own article on the collection – it is “quite thick”, and that is the weak point in an otherwise successful revision.

The proportions are unusual. A case measuring 38 mm in diameter and almost 15 mm in height produces a ratio of roughly 1:2.6. For a watch expressly intended for slimmer wrists, that is considerable. Several commenters rightly pointed towards the competition. The Zenith Chronomaster Original is also 38 mm in diameter but only 12.6 mm thick, while the TAG Heuer Carrera Chronograph Glassbox measures 39 mm by 13.9 mm. The references to the current Tudor chronographs are also factually correct: more compact automatic chronographs are available. And one detail received little attention in the discussion, despite explaining a great deal: the Speedmaster 38 is around 1.5 mm thicker than the 42 mm Moonwatch with a sapphire crystal. The smaller watch is the thicker one.

The reasons for this thickness are clear:

• An automatic chronograph with a column wheel simply requires more space than a hand-wound movement; the rotor and associated automatic-winding components add millimetres.
• The box-shaped sapphire crystal and its raised profile contribute noticeably to the height. At the same time, it is one of the design elements that establishes the visual connection to the Moonwatch.
• The solid, deeply embossed caseback adds further fractions of a millimetre.

The suggestion that the movement alone is “to blame” is therefore too simplistic – as is the counterargument that the movement made any other solution impossible. The more accurate conclusion is that Omega deliberately chose volume over slimness in several areas. That is a design priority, not a physical inevitability. Anyone criticising it is criticising something real.

Where the criticism misses the mark

A significant proportion of the outrage was directed at the tape measure, not the wrist. One commenter put it well: the numbers never tell the whole story. And Swisswatches had the opportunity to explore and wear the watch before its release.

Our view is that how a watch wears is determined not by thickness alone, but by the relationship between lug-to-lug length, case shape and the transition to the bracelet. At 44.96 mm, the lug-to-lug measurement is remarkably short for a chronograph, and the curved lugs begin to follow the wrist early. On an 18.5 cm wrist, the watch sat very well during our test; there, the thickness was more of a visual issue than a practical one.

But that is not the whole story, and we deliberately did not omit it from the second post. A colleague with a slimmer wrist of around 17.8 cm found the same watch considerably more prominent and less comfortable. A retailer commented that the watch had felt top-heavy when tried on and tended to rock on the wrist. These are experiences that cannot, and should not, be argued away.

The honest answer is therefore this: the case thickness is a genuine compromise, but its effect is more individual than the figure suggests. Anyone currently wearing a watch only 8.1 mm thick – another example mentioned in the comments – will need to adjust. Someone coming from a 42 mm Moonwatch probably will not.

What does not stand up, however, is the allegation that this is not a genuine chronograph because the central seconds hand was running in the video. It was running because the chronograph had been started. The small seconds are displayed on the subdial at nine o’clock; the central hand is reserved for the chronograph. Another user kindly corrected this in the comments – a good example of how a community can work when it chooses to.

The movement: “recycled” or strong engineering?

The second major line of criticism concerned the mechanics. “The movement isn’t particularly good; it is recycled,” wrote one Spanish-speaking commenter, pointing to the Tudor Black Bay Chrono as the stronger value proposition. Another suggested that Omega could have chosen a hand-wound movement, dispensed with the Co-Axial escapement or used a different available chronograph calibre.

This requires some differentiation. Six of the seven models use the Co-Axial calibre 3330, while the black, no-date version is powered by calibre 3332. Both run at 4 Hz and offer a 52-hour power reserve, column-wheel control, a free-sprung balance and an Si14 silicon balance spring. The architecture is based on a movement from within the Swatch Group, to which Omega added its Co-Axial escapement and its own regulating technology. It is therefore not a manufacture chronograph calibre developed entirely from scratch, as the 9900 was. But “recycled” is unnecessarily dismissive of an established, chronometer-certified construction.

The more substantive objection lies elsewhere, and it was barely mentioned in the comments: neither the 3330 nor the 3332 carries Master Chronometer certification from METAS. Omega itself has made this standard a central part of the brand’s proposition. Here, it is absent from a watch with a starting price of €6,300. That is the point on which Omega deserves criticism – not the movement’s dimensions.

It also remains unclear whether the 3332 is merely a no-date version of the 3330 or a more extensive revision. Omega has not yet commented on this. We will continue to investigate.

The price: justified criticism, but overstated

“Cost kills it”, “looks great, just not for the price” and “Yeah this model is like 11k? Not worth it” – criticism of the pricing appeared across every language, but it was often imprecise. The collection was repeatedly reduced to its most expensive references.

What matters is that the price range within this model family is considerable. The black steel version without a date starts at €6,300; the silver-coloured model costs €6,500, and the white-and-blue version €6,800. Only the two bicolour models cost €11,300 each, while the diamond-set versions are priced at €11,900 and €12,700. Anyone talking about “11k” is referring to a watch containing 18-carat Sedna or Moonshine Gold, not the entry-level model.

That puts the debate into perspective. The three steel models cost less than the TAG Heuer Carrera Glassbox, while the bicolour and diamond-set versions sit well below the prices usually associated with gold and gem-setting. One commenter nevertheless made the fair point that a 40 mm Speedmaster Racing with related technology can be found on the pre-owned market for a fraction of the price. That is a strong argument – but it is an argument against buying new in general, not against this watch specifically.

Dial, date and colours: the smaller points of contention

Beneath the main debate, a second and quieter one was taking place. The date window at six o’clock, with its white date disc, attracted repeated criticism. The most memorable comment compared it to a “third eye in the middle of a forehead”. The design objection is understandable: the black dial would benefit from a colour-matched date disc. That, however, is precisely why the no-date reference exists – and it is the model that carries the collection.

Conversely, the new five-row bracelet received almost universal praise, as did the broader bezel and the now-round rather than oval subdials. Place the old and new versions side by side and it becomes clear how much calmer the revised dial appears. The bicolour executions remained divisive: for some, the “Cappuccino” is the most attractive version in the collection; for others, it looks cheap. That is a matter of taste, and taste cannot be disproved.

One comment nevertheless deserves a response of its own: “Reduced 2.0” – intended as mockery, but better read as a compliment. That is exactly what this watch is: the first Speedmaster since 1988 to develop the idea behind the Speedmaster Reduced consistently rather than dilute it.

Is this watch journalism? An important debate

In the end, one of the most-discussed threads beneath the post was not about the watch at all. “Are you all being paid to ignore the problem?” asked a photographer – and, with 83 likes, evidently struck a nerve.

To be clear, as we already stated in the comments: the post was neither paid for nor sponsored. Our article on the collection identifies the case thickness as a point of criticism, along with the absence of METAS certification. Anyone who reads it will not find an advertisement.

Even so, the accusation contains a point we accept. Most people do not see the article; they see the social-media post. If a reel shows a watch only from a three-quarter angle and its caption refers to “compact proportions”, while the community is discussing a thickness of 14.75 mm, a gap emerges between what we write and what reaches the audience. One commenter captured this with the best line of the evening: are the compact proportions in the room with us now? Critical dimensions belong in the post, not only in the article. The side profile should be shown, especially when it is inconvenient. That is precisely why we published the second post.

What matters for potential buyers?

Over the course of three days, the community identified what this watch is with considerable precision: the most convincing Speedmaster 38 design since the collection was introduced in 2017; mechanically sound, but without the METAS standard that Omega itself established; and, in terms of proportion, something of a compromise.

The criticism of the case thickness is justified; the dramatisation of it is not. Criticism of the price is justified when it refers to the correct references. Criticism of the movement is also justified, but some of it has focused on the wrong issue: the origin of the architecture is not the problem. The absence of METAS certification is.

Our recommendation is simple: collectors should always try a watch on their own wrist before deciding whether it wears well. No number can determine whether 14.75 mm is too much. That decision belongs to the individual wearer.

omegawatches.com