By continuing to use our site, you agree to us using cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.


Omega Dynamic: A winner because it’s a loser?

By on 6 September 2011 in Watches

Omega Dynamic: A winner because it’s a loser?
Comment Comment Share Twitter Facebook Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Email

Take any number of big Hollywood blockbusters and one of the things you will notice time and time again, is that it is pretty much always the underdog that triumphs. Think the Spiderman, think the Matrix, think Harry Potter; all feature a main character that’s a bit of a loser, a bit of a pushover who, when faced with his demons, comes out on top (and more often than not gets the girl too).

For Omega, the 1990s Dynamic is that very loser. It’s bit odd looking, it wasn’t much of a success when it was new and it has been thoroughly trampled on by the top sellers. It just couldn’t muster the popularity of its siblings let alone its competitors – Seamaster, yeah; Speedmaster, definitely; but Dynamic? It’s the timekeeping equivalent of having to look after your kid brother when your first proper girlfriend came over. If you were to add the Dynamic to your friends list on Facebook (or Google Plus if you’re really trendy) your other cool friends would start dropping like flies. This watch is pure, horological leprosy.

All the signs are pointing firmly in the opposite direction of the Dynamic, telling you to run away and never look back for fear of being consumed by its unpopularity, but, just for a minute, ignore those signs. Thinking back to those blockbuster favourites, the underdogs, the losers – they get their way because they are genuine, decent people. When the world around them tries too hard, they are just acting as themselves, and it’s the same for the Dynamic.

In a sea of ‘special edition this’ and ‘limited edition that’, the Dynamic is quite simply a breath of fresh air. You can wear this watch without having the moon landings, the Olympics or James Bond rammed down your throat, without the corporate marketing machine applying some tedious link to a new sponsor that’s paying the bills; it is just a watch, and a damn good one at that.

Yes, the numbers look a little gawky, yes, the movement isn’t the most impressive, and yes, the bracelet is a little flimsy, but then so was Peter Parker, and have you seen his girlfriend? The best part is that you don’t have to pay premium prices for this piece, and you’ll definitely be the only person you know wearing it.

Actually, that isn’t the best thing about it, not quite. Every Hollywood super hero has its amazing alter-ego, its special power that allows the normally socially awkward nerd to keep villainy at bay, and the Dynamic has that alter-ego too. The original case that comes with the Dynamic is a long, thin tube that’s a little quirky (like the watch), and inside is a guide to unleashing its awesome power. You think the Dynamic is good, well – you ain’t seen nothin’ yet – that watch case also doubles up as a pencil tin.


Omega Dynamic: A winner because it’s a loser?

The Omega Dynamic might just be the underdog that triumphs in a world of Seamasters and Speedmasters. At least that’s what Andrew Morgan thinks. And you?

Read other articles about:
, ,


Andrew is a car and watch enthusiast as well as editor and writer at The Watch Magazine, the online watch magazine by Watchfinder. He packed in a successful career in civil engineering to pursue his passion for writing and horology and has never looked back. The fool.

Read more posts by this author

Contact the author

  • Straight-Six

    While I find the Dynamic (top pic) tout court to be somewhat dull and lacklustre, the Dynamic Geneve (bottom pic) is resolutely funky and genuinely desirable.

    • Pete

      Totally agree. its overpriced now though whereas the 90’s dynamic can be found for a decent amount.

  • Ivan

    This is a bit spooky. I own two dynamics and they are the ones shown in the article’s pictures. I have to agree with straight six. The 1970’s case is an iconic design. The watch, with the original DuPont Corfam straps is a joy on the wrist. The 1990’s chronograph has a diabolical design with a Depraz chrono module attached on the movement, which shows in the misaligned crown and pushers. And the bracelet is light and flimsy. Now, why is it that I love this monstrusity?

  • http://Timezone K Adshead

    Personally I don’t get the link between geeky movie heroes and the Omega Dynamic. Very. Very tenuous simile.

    While the new Dynamic looks like it was built from a parts bin just so they could release something new, the vintage is one of the most groundbreaking watches ever released.

    The original late 60’s model Dynamic epitomised the quirky yet funcional design features of the time, and oozed opulence. It took the hugely popular ‘pie-pan’ dials brought to prominence in the 1950’s and updated them in tremendous style with the easy on-the-eye ‘bullseye’ styling. And the elliptical case wasn’t just for style, hundreds of hours went into developing a case which sat comfortably on the wristbone.

    This watch was (another) large step forward for Omega, and showed the world yet again that it wasn’t afraid to take chances. The ergonomically designed case was copied by companies the world over. Yet Omega were the company that sunk thousands into the design.

    That its main strength isn’t that it featured in a movie is testament to its popularity, not something detremental, along with the fact that, back then people bought quality products – not what they saw on telly and were told to go and purchase.
    So Omega now milk the ‘Bond’ seamaster, and the ‘Moonwatch’ speedy pro – that is simply a sign of the times.

    The movement isn’t impressive? Errr, the calibre 565 that went into most of the early Dynamic watches was (and remains) one of Omega’s most accurate.
    The straps were interchangable and virtually disposable – hence the removal tool that came with the watch. The bracelets were a little tinny, but it was a hollow link. Ever felt a Rolex bracelet of the same era? Hmmmm, same thing…

    “Pure horological leprosy” Biggest load of nonsense I have ever heard. Mine get comments every time I put them on.
    I believe this article has lost you a regular reader.
    I only hope (sincerely) that this was written by a trainee who knows little about watches. To have a professional watch enthusiast write this would be an insult.

  • john steppling

    Ive had a sort of change of heart about Omega in general the last couple years. I never had liked them much. I didnt dislike then, but they just didnt interest me for some reason. I got that the Speedmaster was iconic and all, but there seemed much more interesting watches out there. However, now when I look at Omega I see them really turning out some pretty nice looking watches, and with some very nice movements (notwithstanding a couple mis-steps). And i mean if one were to worry about marketing one would wear what…….a Ball railroad standard from 1965.? I think the new seamaster chronograph is beautiful. Ok, there is the james bond echo…..but its a beautiful watch…in person its stunning. Its also half the price of a Rolex. Even the Planet Ocean is a pretty nice run. Im starting to really like a lot of vintage Omegas….same as vintage Heuer. Not sure why. But they seem a bit less ostentatious — if that makes any sense, and it probably doesnt. This is all absurdly subjective…….but the Dynamic is, indeed, pretty cool. Its odd, its rare, and its just appealing.

  • dutton,r

    I bought my Omega Dynamic ,new in 1997, at Watches of Switzerland. It has gone wrong twice ,and at £300 ,for this latest service
    ,plus whatever parts,charged in addition,it becomes a ridiculous luxury, that I can no longer afford. A silver cream jug dated 1821 costs about the same price . That is functional and does what it says it will do. The watch mentioned above having let me down can never be trusted by me as being reliable. The Board of Omega ,should feel humiliated that their great Brand has produced a watch that I have replaced with a £46 watch by Pulsar. Every time I see that Omega is involved with the Olympic Games , I tell myself that they should ,if they were properly customer focussed do all they can to recompense me for ,in my view ,buying a watch that lets one down. Previously I owned an Omega Seamaster. It was brilliant.
    I wonder whether Omega`s parent company will even bother to, contact me, let alone, repair my watch ,free ? The cardinal point is this: Omega products should be better/more reliable than cheaper brands. Are they ? Had they told me, look Sir , this watch may need expensive regular serviceing-I would never have bought it.

  • Angus Macgregor

    I also have a Dynamic purchased in 1997. It has been worn every day (and night) up until about a year ago when I started swapping it in and out with a Sinn 358 Diapal. In all those years it has never been serviced, only stopped about 3 times after running down while off my wrist and keeps to about 1 second per day once warmed up on my wrist. It is the most reliable watch I have ever seen. Sound like R Dutton has been very unlucky getting the ‘rotten apple’. Either that or I am very lucky in getting the only good apple!

    If I didn’t own one today, I would certainly buy one. It’s limited production run (it was not popular at the time so never sold too well) and simple 50’s military issue design makes it a classic that can only go up in value. Not that I could be persuaded to part with it.

    Having said all that – the chronograph version is the Frankensteins monster of watches! :)