Nearly identical mechanism in two different ⌚ from two different brands: CHOOSE
The Seiko Prospex Speedtimer (SBEC009; SRQ037j1) shares nearly the same vertical clutch column wheel chronograph mechanism featured in the Pitzmann 3 chronograph: Seiko 8R48/46, where the first and second are tricompax and bicompax, respectively.
Dilemma is $3200 USD for the Seiko with a 15.3 mm thickness and $1499 USD for the Pitzmann 3 with a 13.2 mm thickness.
Does a microbrand ⌚ with the same mechanism as the parent manufacturer of the mechanism repulse or intrigue you?
69 comments
Sort by
Sawtelle Gaijin
A Swiss Army Knife.
Member since
Last active: 2 hrs ago
8.27” / 21.00 cm
Seiko are known for two things: Beautiful dials and kinda high prices. Good microbrands (and I've heard Pitzmann are one), are known for fresh ideas and high quality for a relatively low price.
So... it depends on the watch. In this case I'm not a fan of either watch, but generally, micros are highly attractive. It's possible my future purchase will be a micro.
Seiko are known for two things: Beautiful dials and kinda high prices. Good microbrands (and I've heard Pitzmann are one), are known for fresh ideas and high quality for a relatively low price.
So... it depends on the watch. In this case I'm not a fan of either watch, but generally, micros are highly attractive. It's possible my future purchase will be a micro.
Both of these ⌚ are nice. . .but. . .the Seiko is overpriced for what it is, particularly at that ridiculous thickness. The only element the Seiko has that I prefer is the exhibition caseback. The pushers might be slightly nicer too, yet Seiko fans cannot balk at an equally nice ⌚ with the same mechanism for a lower price!!! This is not an NH35 mechanism in question either.
Both of these ⌚ are nice. . .but. . .the Seiko is overpriced for what it is, particularly at that ridiculous thickness. The only element the Seiko has that I prefer is the exhibition caseback. The pushers might be slightly nicer too, yet Seiko fans cannot balk at an equally nice ⌚ with the same mechanism for a lower price!!! This is not an NH35 mechanism in question either.
"Fan" is short for "fanatic admirer". You can't expect objectivity from such people.
I did say that Seikos are overpriced. 😀Combine their thick movements with display case backs and you get chunkers.
However, if you prefer a particular watch, nothing else can substitute it. How long have you had this dilemma? I suggest you give it a week or so and you'll see where your "heart" is.
"Fan" is short for "fanatic admirer". You can't expect objectivity from such people.
I did say that Seikos are overpriced. 😀Combine their thick movements with display case backs and you get chunkers.
However, if you prefer a particular watch, nothing else can substitute it. How long have you had this dilemma? I suggest you give it a week or so and you'll see where your "heart" is.
I have pondered over the Seiko Prospex Speedtimer itself for many months now and even tried the SBEC009 at an authorized dealer in September of 2023.
The grey dial was remarkable and a complete surprise, and I was considering getting it seriously apart from rather noticable thickness.
A thick ⌚ itself does not always wear like a burden except when in stainless steel.
Anyhow, I really liked and continue to like the movement so much so that I ordered the Pitzmann 3 chronograph as soon as I learned of it.
I had wanted, and may still want, the First Pitzmann with its enamel dial and thermally blued hands, but the 8R48 (NE88) movement, ceramic bezel, and 13.2 mm thickness, among other attributes won me over in a second unlike the Oreo cookie thickness chronograph from Seiko.
Seiko fans, Seiko is and will always be one of my favorite brands to both admire and own, but thickness is a deal breaker for me.
Only thick ⌚ that I will consider is if they wear well (usually, but not always, in titanium, ceratanium, etc.) with two or more complications.
I have pondered over the Seiko Prospex Speedtimer itself for many months now and even tried the SBEC009 at an authorized dealer in September of 2023.
The grey dial was remarkable and a complete surprise, and I was considering getting it seriously apart from rather noticable thickness.
A thick ⌚ itself does not always wear like a burden except when in stainless steel.
Anyhow, I really liked and continue to like the movement so much so that I ordered the Pitzmann 3 chronograph as soon as I learned of it.
I had wanted, and may still want, the First Pitzmann with its enamel dial and thermally blued hands, but the 8R48 (NE88) movement, ceramic bezel, and 13.2 mm thickness, among other attributes won me over in a second unlike the Oreo cookie thickness chronograph from Seiko.
Seiko fans, Seiko is and will always be one of my favorite brands to both admire and own, but thickness is a deal breaker for me.
Only thick ⌚ that I will consider is if they wear well (usually, but not always, in titanium, ceratanium, etc.) with two or more complications.
Well said. After buying my Vostok, I knew that a 42mm timing bezel positioned 13 mm above my wrist was too much for sleeves.
Thick might click, but thin will always win.
I like the seiko more but given the price and thickness I'd go pizzman
I looked at the Seiko for a while but couldn’t pull the trigger. Saw the Pitzmann (ice blue) and saw it had the same movement with the date at 6 and went for it. It came in last week and have felt great about my decision.
Thin is in!
3200$ for Seiko? No way
Pitzmann. Completely.
That isnt even a contest, get the Pitzmann.
There is nothing wrong with simple appreciation. The problem starts when appreciation turns to blind fanatisicm and people dont want or can not see problems with the producs.
"Compared to what exactly?" He shows us exatly what we should compare. A similar product with the same inner workings but for less than half the price. Im not sure if the Seiko provides that much more for 2.5x times the price.
And yes, mainstream manufacturers are overprized.
There's nothing wrong with appreciating a brand, I never said otherwise.
They're overpriced compared to other brands with comparable market position and built quality, e. g. Tissot. Not horrendously overpriced, though. If their QC was better and higher-end movements performed better, I'd say the prices are fully justified.
Microbrands kill Seiko with their own movements which speaks to the corporate greed of selling aftermarket movements unlike ETA to everyone and fleecing their brand loyal clientele using the same movements.
Firstly I would suggest you take it a bit more easy, my and some other comments are not personal attack on you or your watch choice but our oppinion. I hope we still can express one without being attacked or accused of being snob.
Secondly I had many Seiko watches in my collecting journey and have decided not to spend that much on one which doesn't imply I am a snob. Again my decision and oppinion.
Maybe your strong attack on comments that don't correlate with yours implys on your insecurity of this purchase🤔
In any case enjoy your watch and if it makes you happy that is the only thing that matters.
✌️
As I have written, I cannot comprehend the thickness of the Seiko Prospex Speedtimer.
The SBEC009 with that gray dial is probably the nicest option available for this line.
I would wear it happily and cannot conclude that I will never buy one.
You made a fine choice, but I am too damned clumsy to carry around such a thick ⌚.
Plus, it gets heavy.
In my view l, it would be a really fun weekend ⌚, but I am not prepared to pay that kind of money for that that kind of thickness.
My only exception, which I cannot afford, is the Grand Seiko SBGC221: nearly 16 mm in thickness at $14,800, though I believe it is discontinued.
Unlike the SBEC009, it is a vertical clutch column wheel chronograph mechanism with a traveller's GMT with a ceramic and titanium case and bracelet, which make the ⌚ wear surprisingly less overwhelming.
At $3200, a vertical clutch column wheel chronograph mechanism is going to be a hard find, but I would sooner pay more for a thinner ⌚ with the aforementioned column wheel chronograph mechanism.
The Pitzmann, especially as a microbrand, is a shocking price due to their lack of economies of scale that Seiko has.
This is not a Seiko hating thread - far from it.
If anything, I would think that Seiko wins with either the Pitzmann 3 or the Prospex Speedtimer because they share the same mechanism!!!
Finally, I may not have many serious ⌚ at present but own and will continue to own both JDM mechanical and solar quartz ⌚ from Seiko itself because it is truly one of the leading brands in ⌚ making history.
Seiko is NOT the manufacturer of the thickest ⌚.
My big knock against the Pitzmann, no matter how good the specs or the finishing, is that the design is so Daytona-derivative. That said, if the discussion is comparing it on a spec/price level to one of Seiko’s own chronos, I’d suggest looking at the SRQ047 mechanical Speedtimer, which uses the same movement with the three-register layout, is within 1mm of the Pitzmann in terms of thickness, and a little cheaper than the other Seiko at $2500 MSRP.
It’s still more expensive than the Pitzmann, of course, but that’s always going to be the case when you’re comparing a microbrand that doesn’t have to deal with all the R&D costs of developing that movement, supporting their own factories and distribution networks, mass marketing, AD networks, repair facilities, and large-scale staffing. There’s also the huge price delta between a microbrand that gets 100% of the selling price via direct sales vs the store-bought brands who only get to keep 40-50% of the MSRP. Microbrands can always give us more watch for less dough and that’s where the best of them shine. But for me personally, I’ve only owned a few Microbrands because I like going to stores, trying things on, judging the quality up close, and knowing before I spend my money if I love it. And, of course, knowing that if I change my mind or something goes wrong, I have a person and a place I can work with to make things right—I was burned so hard by Yema that I will never buy any watch that’s beyond a couple hundred bucks from an online-only brand again (Christopher Ward being a possible exception given the stellar quality of their watches and my excellent experience with their customer service).
So my preference would be to spend the extra dough for the Seiko just to have the piece of mind and not have to deal with the time, cost, and customs hassles of purchasing and returns. Plus, I happen to love the designs of the Seiko mechanical Speedtimers quite a bit, and have one I love and wear often (and bought new for an easy 20% off retail without having to negotiate other than asking “so what would this cost out the door?”). The thickness is real, but for reasons I can’t really explain, it kinda works with the design—it’s chunky enough to be fun but I don’t find it garish or unbalanced the way I find the similarly sized IWC Spitfire chrono.
As to the “that’s too much for a Seiko” remarks, I don’t understand them at all. Unless you’re comparing the Seikos to Microbrands as above, the mechanical Speedtimers are a bargain—you simply won’t find another chronograph offering an in-house vertical-clutch/column-wheel movement, let alone with the level of case and dial finishing on display here, for less, and in most cases, it’ll cost hundreds, if not thousands, more. The closest thing I’ve seen recently is the Longines Conquest Chronograph, which matches the Seiko’s specs but is priced much higher at $3750. Other than a snobby and misinformed bias in favor of watches that have “Swiss Made” printed on the dial, I can’t see why that isn’t “too much for a Longines” the way $2500 (or even $3200) is “too much for a Seiko.”
Handsome ⌚.
$3750 is too expensive for a Longines.
The Avigation Bigeye, albeit attractive, is also chunky and wears equally large on the wrist despite being just under a millimeter thinner.
Longines fans: I own a Heritage Pulsometer Chronograph and love it (Longines needs to refocus on their Heritage Line).
Nonetheless. . .someone wrote above that watchmakers are all too expensive for what they produce, which is neither wrong nor irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
This is why I prefer the grey market to authorized dealers, yet I am of the mindset that Seiko does not have enough mechanical chronographs when it, more than anyone else, has the capacity to experiment with it.
The Prospex Speedtimer editions were somewhat of a let down with their thick design.
That is where I stand.
Otherwise, it would be a ⌚ deserving of its MSRP.
My issue is with the thickness.
How can Pitzmann get a slimmer ⌚ with the same mechanism?
Plus, how did Pitzmann manage to offer a cheaper ⌚ with smaller production scale?
From what I can see, the Pitzmann is less than 1.5mm thinner than the SRQ047 (13.25mm vs 14.6mm), which could be chalked up to the Pitzmann having a closed caseback and flat crystal compared to the exhibition caseback and domed crystal of the Seiko, both of which add height.
As far as price, it comes down to two things: Seiko’s wholesale price model vs. Pitzmann’s direct-to-consumer model means that if you go to an AD and buy a $2500 Seiko, Seiko itself only gets 40-50% of that money—about $1200—and the rest is the AD’s profit. Because Pitzmann only sells direct, they keep all of that $1500 they’re charging you. In effect, Pitzmann grosses more per watch than Seiko. The other factor in the price is Seiko developing and manufacturing products vs. Pitzmann merely sourcing movements, cases, dials, and assembly from existing entities. As such, Pitzmann has almost no overhead compared to Seiko, not having to carry the payroll, equipment, facitilites, and R&D costs of a fully-integrated, volume watchmaker. I think of it this way: companies like Seiko (or Swatch or Citizen) can exist without companies like Pitzmann, but companies like Pitzmann couldn’t exist without Seiko. It doesn’t mean their watches aren’t a great—or even better—value for our money, but it makes sense to me why they’re able to seemingly deliver so much bang-for-buck. Though, as I was saying in my earlier post, I find a lot of value in the convenience and security of the retail model when dealing in such expensive purchases.
From what I can see, the Pitzmann is less than 1.5mm thinner than the SRQ047 (13.25mm vs 14.6mm), which could be chalked up to the Pitzmann having a closed caseback and flat crystal compared to the exhibition caseback and domed crystal of the Seiko, both of which add height.
As far as price, it comes down to two things: Seiko’s wholesale price model vs. Pitzmann’s direct-to-consumer model means that if you go to an AD and buy a $2500 Seiko, Seiko itself only gets 40-50% of that money—about $1200—and the rest is the AD’s profit. Because Pitzmann only sells direct, they keep all of that $1500 they’re charging you. In effect, Pitzmann grosses more per watch than Seiko. The other factor in the price is Seiko developing and manufacturing products vs. Pitzmann merely sourcing movements, cases, dials, and assembly from existing entities. As such, Pitzmann has almost no overhead compared to Seiko, not having to carry the payroll, equipment, facitilites, and R&D costs of a fully-integrated, volume watchmaker. I think of it this way: companies like Seiko (or Swatch or Citizen) can exist without companies like Pitzmann, but companies like Pitzmann couldn’t exist without Seiko. It doesn’t mean their watches aren’t a great—or even better—value for our money, but it makes sense to me why they’re able to seemingly deliver so much bang-for-buck. Though, as I was saying in my earlier post, I find a lot of value in the convenience and security of the retail model when dealing in such expensive purchases.
Well said about the profit breakdown.
I wrote that I would not discount one of these Prospex Speedtimer editions entirely.
The absence of an exhibition caseback is something that Pitzmann should have avoided.
As for the SRQ047, the case shape is nicer with the Prospex Speedtimer editions.
Well said about the profit breakdown.
I wrote that I would not discount one of these Prospex Speedtimer editions entirely.
The absence of an exhibition caseback is something that Pitzmann should have avoided.
As for the SRQ047, the case shape is nicer with the Prospex Speedtimer editions.
I love the SRQ047, but I do like the original Prospex models as they seem much more distinctive to me.
Good heavens.
I was not offended by any of your comments.
I just said that thickness was a priority when choosing a ⌚.
Thank you for providing nice pictures of your SBEC009.
Handsome ⌚.
$3750 is too expensive for a Longines.
The Avigation Bigeye, albeit attractive, is also chunky and wears equally large on the wrist despite being just under a millimeter thinner.
Longines fans: I own a Heritage Pulsometer Chronograph and love it (Longines needs to refocus on their Heritage Line).
Nonetheless. . .someone wrote above that watchmakers are all too expensive for what they produce, which is neither wrong nor irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
This is why I prefer the grey market to authorized dealers, yet I am of the mindset that Seiko does not have enough mechanical chronographs when it, more than anyone else, has the capacity to experiment with it.
The Prospex Speedtimer editions were somewhat of a let down with their thick design.
That is where I stand.
Otherwise, it would be a ⌚ deserving of its MSRP.
100% agreed! My only open question (and I don’t know the answer) is to what extent the thickness of the Prospex Speedtimers was a design choice on Seiko’s part rather than a restriction. Looking at mine, there appears to be a lot of room between the dial and the crystal, and the caseback also seems to add a lot of height. It’s possible they weren’t trying for the thinnest execution but instead felt these were right inline with the other automatic chronos from the Swatch group, Richemont, TAG, Breitling, and other competitors (many of which cost 2-3x more). It’s just a theory, but it’s also possible they did this to visually separate it from the solar quartz Speedtimers that came out at the same time? I’d love to speak with one of the designers to learn about it all!
I will say this: while the Speedtimer is bigger than any other watch I own—both in thickness and diameter—it still looks and feels right even on my relatively thin wrists. I don’t mean to say it “wears smaller” but rather it all just works on its own terms. It’s not as versatile as it might be if you lopped 2mm off the top, but the watch feels right as it is.
100% agreed! My only open question (and I don’t know the answer) is to what extent the thickness of the Prospex Speedtimers was a design choice on Seiko’s part rather than a restriction. Looking at mine, there appears to be a lot of room between the dial and the crystal, and the caseback also seems to add a lot of height. It’s possible they weren’t trying for the thinnest execution but instead felt these were right inline with the other automatic chronos from the Swatch group, Richemont, TAG, Breitling, and other competitors (many of which cost 2-3x more). It’s just a theory, but it’s also possible they did this to visually separate it from the solar quartz Speedtimers that came out at the same time? I’d love to speak with one of the designers to learn about it all!
I will say this: while the Speedtimer is bigger than any other watch I own—both in thickness and diameter—it still looks and feels right even on my relatively thin wrists. I don’t mean to say it “wears smaller” but rather it all just works on its own terms. It’s not as versatile as it might be if you lopped 2mm off the top, but the watch feels right as it is.
I was thinking the same about size limitations myself.
The Prospex Speedtimer does have an accommodating dome sapphire crystal that arcs, which also adds height but floods light.
I was so torn between the model you bought and the SRQ035 I ended up with. My wife and I were at a jeweler around Christmas time and I was trying both of them on over and over again. She asked which I liked more, if she were considering one as a Christmas gift for me and I was so torn between the two that I said, “you decide—I’d love whichever one you get me.” When I opened the box that Christmas (she’s the best) and saw which one she picked, she said the salesman noticed that my eyes kept going to the 035, even when it wasn’t on my wrist, and she took that as a sign that it was the one I really wanted ;)
There are plenty of other manufacturers that are too thick and on average too.
Breitling, for example, wears quite large,.and I am not referencing their rattrapante.
AGAIN. . .this is NOT against Seiko. It is simply that the Prospex Speedtimer is a bit thicker than necessary.
You need not agree with me.
Your SBEC009 is quite handsome and was my choice before I bought another ⌚ instead, which is not to say that I might consider it at a later date.
My original question was about two ⌚ with the same mechanism and arguably comparable finishing.
Good for you, your parents should be really proud. I see you even managed to argue with OP as he also doesn't share your unbias and professional oppinion re thickness. Even he can't have HIS oppionion based on HIS preferences of thickness.
Keep up with great work, you will soon be awarded with Seiko gatekeeping badge.
And about your mentioned thread:
"They are luxuries that none of us really need, which is why we buy with our heart's over head's
Sadly there are a lot of people who just can't understand that
They are just one dimensional shallow individuals who we should feel sorry for"
Obvioulsy our hearts are way inferior because they don't correlate/agree with yours and need to be persuaded otherwise with rational explanations like quality of QC, finish, inhouse movements and value. Oxymoron ideed, I do feel sorry for you.
Also feel even more sorry for all people that think 60+ posts resulted in productive debate and later find out 40+ of them is you bashing on all that don't agree with you.
Yes, but in true Seiko fashion, not so limited that more than 2 years later you can't find them new or used at significant discount ;)
I love that one. Maybe more than the one I have...