The James Bond watch you should buy, full-stop!

James Bond has worn a lot of different watches, and watch brands, on the big screen. Since the mid-1990s, however, the character has been joined at the hip with the Omega brand.
In this video I briefly run through the history of Bond watches, then talk about the two models worn during the Pierce Brosnan era which, as used watches today, represent amazing value.
Goldeneye - Omega Seamaster Professional 300M Ref. 2541.80 (Quartz)
Tomorrow Never Dies / The World is Not Enough / Die Another Day - Omega Seamaster Professional 300M Ref. 2531.80 (Automatic)
Do you already own a 'Bond watch'? Which one do you have? Omega? Rolex? Or one of the more obscure ones? are you thinking of buying one in the future? If so, why not let me know all about it, down in the comments.

[@Harry-tb8yo]

I have the 2220.80 which for me combines the best of both worlds, the "old" Brosnan era SMP and the newer ones. It clearly has the Brosnan watch design but adds depth and more modern movement of the newer era to it, while keeping size and comfort of the older models. The current models are much more bulky and have lost some of their versatility in my opinion.

[@justinsmith4941]

Goldeneye omega was first watch that I ever got then got the casino royale planet ocean and spectre omega all three definitely always give the look the of elegance and style, always be a brand worthy of bond and now my own collection

[@neoelitist]

I agree, the quartz model is the quintessential one. Even the newest coaxial movements (I have one) gain or lose 2 or 3 minutes between the time you need to adjust the date every two months. I don't imagine James Bond wanting to worry about that.

[@MrDeengels]

I have the Omega 2541 and it’s one of my favorite watches ever. I have Christopher Ward, Tag, and Longines. But my Omega is the nearest and dearest to my heart.

[@oliverrendall]

I have just got a 2541.80 and agree, not only the one to have, it is the most comfortable watch I have ever worn. My new daily desk diver :)

[@adrianramriez9045]

I own a omega 300m coaxial escapement blue on a rubber strap its a beautiful watch and the liquid ceramic metal finished dial always looks amazing.

[@you0nlylivetwice]

I agree, it's the only watch that's been in several movies and not changed, unlike Craig's era every movie it's a different watch. I purchased a 2531.80 last year and took it to Omega for a refurbish, they replaced the bezel and crowns with new ones, I requested a new clasp also, they polished the bracelet and case, It essentially looks new for an 18 year old watch (this one being from 2006). Right now you can request any part to be replaced with a new one. I couldn't be happier, sometimes I just stare at the watch with different lighting angles just to admire it. Having grown up in the 90's with Pierce on the big screen this had to be me first option.

[@BeeABaw]

Always my go to. I’m dying to find one at a decent price.

[@sanjurohokusai]

I have a 2561.80 and even though it isn't a Brosnan watch persay people still views it as a Bond watch. All because its the same look cept mid-size.

[@tonispark5626]

My favourite Seamaster ref 2220.80 ,too bad that nowdays prices skyrocketed for this particular model at least here in Europe, some round €3600- €4500

[@imranbecks]

2:30 That's the one I have. The Casino Royale 2220.80. Great looking, versatile and a reliable timepiece. The applied markers and logos adds a touch of luxury that the Brosnan ones didn't have.

[@HaveYouSeen]

Which isn't to say the Brosnan era watches aren't luxury. The automatics, in particular, are chronometer certified pieces which wipe the floor with a great many watches, even 30 years after the quartz model first debuted.

[@imranbecks]

@@HaveYouSeen Ah of course. The Brosnan SMP is definitely luxury. Just something about the applied markers. Even though I have the 2220.80, the 2531.80 is something I'd love to add to my collection one day because I grew up watching Brosnan playing Bond and that watch of his was always something I've wanted but couldn't afford because I was only in high school when I first saw my first Bond movie which was Tomorrow Never Dies. By the time it was 2012, the 2531.80 was long phased out and a fresh and new 2220.80 was something I'd want after seeing it around Craig in the hit that was Casino Royale 6 years prior. And it's still going strong after all these years.

[@herewegoagain...]

@@HaveYouSeen The Brosnan era watches are indeed a piece of history, and no one should understate that, be it quartz or the auto. The auto particularly is basically a slightly modified ETA 2892-A2, with some reliability improvements, making it an unbelievably stout movement. That said, I must admit I find the 2220.80 to be a substantial improvement over the 2531.80 for 2 main reasons: 1. While almost perfect, the Brosnan 2531.80's lack of applied markers on the dial really was unacceptable as a Rolex competitor, even back then, and while said wave dial, in general, is still a cut above a simple enamel Rolex dial, the 2220.80 really elevated and completed the look with a dial that, frankly, should have shipped back in 1993. 2. The second major improvement is a bit more controversial, and points definitely do go to the earlier model when it comes to it: the movement. Omega's 2500 Co-axial movement, while still technically a HEAVILY modified 2892, was their first true in house movement of the modern era. And that Co-axial escapement really was smart, albeit notoriously difficult to work on. Like Rolex's 3135 and its ilk, the custom escapement really sets it apart from other brands that simply add a few jewels to an ETA, or worse, simply source an ETA or Sellita and slap on a custom rotor (I'm looking at you, Tag-Heuer). As an added bonus, such movements have never been fully replicated by the illegal replica manufacturers, as those escapements are just to difficult to copy reliably. That said, The 2500, particularly the A, B, and C variants, suffered reliability concerns as the first of Omega's brand a new movement. The complexity of the escapement was prone to failure, though Omega did mitigate the issue in the 2500D model, when they simplified some of the levers and reduced the number of parts. So, for all the talk and craftsmanship, I must award points to the earlier 2531.80, as that ETA based 1120 was reliable, easy to service almost anywhere, and yet still was manufactured, and stamped by Omega, NOT ETA. Regardless, as much as I like my Craig era 300m more, you cannot go wrong either way, and the older models still have very real advantages. The Quartz 2541.80, in particular, is the thinnest of the bunch, which makes it the ultimate pick to wear with a suit, if you can fathom such blasphemy ;)

[@scoutandscooter]

My wife gave me a 007 40th. $6,000 is certainly not entry level. Then again, I'm used to wearing a Timex Ironman when I run and swim.

[@HaveYouSeen]

It's all relative to when they were purchased. I have a 1999 version of the automatic featured in this video and it was around USD$1500 new. The 40th anniversary watch you have - which is based on the watch in this video, but is updated in a number of ways and, of course, isn't 'screen accurate' like the one in this video for obvious reasons - came out in 2002 and while I don't believe it cost a lot more at retail, has appreciated faster due to it being limited to 10,007 units. The watch in this video, meanwhile, was made for over a decade and they made A LOT of them, which has kept the price low on the market, so they remain - as I said in the video - an absolutely outstanding purchase today; even one in need of a major service.

[@DiamondJoe_]

Any JP sites I recommend?

[@vvanced99]

2254.50 🤔