Harsh, but there is some truth in that.
For some, it's a collectable piece, and I get that, fair play to those that want it, I totally understand. Horology gets us all in different ways.
But if we look at the actual watch, and forget all about the branding, the hype, etc etc, it's just a cheap quartz chrono.
We all know that swatch owns omega, and from their point of view it looks like a great marketing exercise, but the execs at omega must be fuming.
They have spent years playing catch up to rolex, and to some extent were getting there, some of their modern watches are superb, I'd say from bond seamaster to present day, the recent era of offerings is right up there.
Then you have omegas in house movements, the Co axial escapement is just stunning. The history, moonwatch, railmaster, seamaster, the brief quartz dabbling, a history as rich and as varied as rolex, if not more so.
Rolex has always had genius marketing, always given the impression they were unobtainable to the likes of me, even if I could afford it. Total bullshit of course, but I could never be arsed to play the dealer lick arse game.
Omega went the other way, make good watches, stick some unique tech in there, (liquid metal anyone) make them relatively affordable, and most importantly, available. Winner.
Then swatch put that omega name on, well, a swatch.
It wouldn't put me off buying another omega, but I could see why it might possibly compromise brand loyalty amongst omega fans going forward.
Strange move indeed