Discussion
Does anyone have any experience of one? I've never seen one around but I like the look of their Skyquest, as I'm currently planning on adding a GMT to my collection.
Its either that or I go vintage with my choice and get a a Zodiac Aerospace GMT which I'm also fond of. knowing me though I will end up with both!
Would be good to hear views from others on them.
Its either that or I go vintage with my choice and get a a Zodiac Aerospace GMT which I'm also fond of. knowing me though I will end up with both!
Would be good to hear views from others on them.
Never owned one, but I’d consider picking one up at a future point, maybe second-hand.
I really like them - nice proportions, above-average build and quality of finishing, with some subtle fine flourishes.
Monta took a bit of online flak a while back when they changed their sale model from Authorised Dealer to Direct Online, but I think they've come out of it ok, and from a few of their interviews they seem like guys who have put a lot of thought & care into their watches.
Plus, they're pretty uncommon. I think they're probably worth every penny of their RRP.
I really like them - nice proportions, above-average build and quality of finishing, with some subtle fine flourishes.
Monta took a bit of online flak a while back when they changed their sale model from Authorised Dealer to Direct Online, but I think they've come out of it ok, and from a few of their interviews they seem like guys who have put a lot of thought & care into their watches.
Plus, they're pretty uncommon. I think they're probably worth every penny of their RRP.
^
They took flak because of the original price they charged for their watch, only to then drop the price considerably a bit later – the early adopters were less than pleased.
The price was also far too much for a new brand’s first foray, even though the owner is the same chap behind Everest straps – the other RubberB rubber strap alternative.
I’m less than impressed with their latest announcement – they’ve dropped the Eterna Cal.39 (65 hours PR) for the bog standard ETA 2824 (not even the slimeline 2892, FFS!), so as they can make more profit.
Of course, they cited some bulls
t nonsense about future servicing of the Eterna (which means Cardshark’s fked, if hangs on to his any longer), but in reality, it could be a number of things far from any suggestion that Eterna’s existence was in serious doubt.
They took flak because of the original price they charged for their watch, only to then drop the price considerably a bit later – the early adopters were less than pleased.
The price was also far too much for a new brand’s first foray, even though the owner is the same chap behind Everest straps – the other RubberB rubber strap alternative.
I’m less than impressed with their latest announcement – they’ve dropped the Eterna Cal.39 (65 hours PR) for the bog standard ETA 2824 (not even the slimeline 2892, FFS!), so as they can make more profit.
Of course, they cited some bulls
t nonsense about future servicing of the Eterna (which means Cardshark’s fked, if hangs on to his any longer), but in reality, it could be a number of things far from any suggestion that Eterna’s existence was in serious doubt.PJ S said:
^
They took flak because of the original price they charged for their watch, only to then drop the price considerably a bit later – the early adopters were less than pleased.
The price was also far too much for a new brand’s first foray, even though the owner is the same chap behind Everest straps – the other RubberB rubber strap alternative.
I’m less than impressed with their latest announcement – they’ve dropped the Eterna Cal.39 (65 hours PR) for the bog standard ETA 2824 (not even the slimeline 2892, FFS!), so as they can make more profit.
Of course, they cited some bullst nonsense about future servicing of the Eterna (which means Cardshark’s fked, if hangs on to his any longer), but in reality, it could be a number of things far from any suggestion that Eterna’s existence was in serious doubt.
Yup, they did take some flak for their initial launch price and for the subsequent drop, though I personally haven't read any complaints about the original Oceanking being overpriced relative to it's quality by those that have handled them, just the understandable questioning of how wise it was for a new brand to enter the market at that price point. Those that did pay the original prices were offered some form of recompense though I can't remember what form that took.They took flak because of the original price they charged for their watch, only to then drop the price considerably a bit later – the early adopters were less than pleased.
The price was also far too much for a new brand’s first foray, even though the owner is the same chap behind Everest straps – the other RubberB rubber strap alternative.
I’m less than impressed with their latest announcement – they’ve dropped the Eterna Cal.39 (65 hours PR) for the bog standard ETA 2824 (not even the slimeline 2892, FFS!), so as they can make more profit.
Of course, they cited some bulls
t nonsense about future servicing of the Eterna (which means Cardshark’s fked, if hangs on to his any longer), but in reality, it could be a number of things far from any suggestion that Eterna’s existence was in serious doubt.I'll do some digging about your mentioning of ETA movements being used, everything that I've read so far, including Monta's recently updated website, says that they've switched entirely to Sellita, the SW300 for the new Oceanking and the Triumph and the SW330 for the Skyquest. As I understand it the SW300 is the equivalent of ETA's "slimline" 2892, not the 2824, and both the 300 and 330 are chronometer tuned in Monta's applications as well. No corners being cut there, not that I can see anyway. As for me being screwed with my Eterna Oceanking, I think I'll be fine
OP - It looks as if they've dropped the prices again. Both the Skyquest and new Oceanking are showing as £1229 on bracelets pre-order plus VAT/charges (original OK was over £1600 iirc) so you'll be looking at circa £1500 straight from Monta themselves. Given my experience with my OK and the specs as per Monta's website I'd say that they offer some serious value for money, though it will still be a leap of faith in purchasing one seeing as it's next to impossible to try before you buy.
Just a few other points. You may already be aware of this however the SQ isn't a true GMT in that you can't advance the hour hand separately, though for the price you can't really complain. The 'photo you've posted must be a pre-production mock-up, the SQ has crown guards (missing in your example) and also has black on white date wheels on all of the dial combinations available, it's white on black in the OP. Also worthy of a mention is that both the SQ and new OK have lumed bezels, something that was missing on the original OK. The dial minute markers are also different on Monta's own site.
I've owned a number of different watches now and would honestly say that my OK holds its own. The bezel action is possibly the best I've ever used, the bracelet is supremely comfortable with its unusual articulated links, and whilst the finish isn't quite Grand Seiko levels it's more than acceptable for the £.
Edited by CardShark on Thursday 29th March 23:32
^
Ah, my mistake then – thought it was SW200, now that you mention Sellita.
You’re being shafted is nothing more than my being facetious, but it’s disappointing nonetheless to see they’ve ditched Eterna in favour of Sellita – that Cal.39 is available in a number of configurations, not least one being GMT.
Ah, my mistake then – thought it was SW200, now that you mention Sellita.
You’re being shafted is nothing more than my being facetious, but it’s disappointing nonetheless to see they’ve ditched Eterna in favour of Sellita – that Cal.39 is available in a number of configurations, not least one being GMT.
Ach - I was writing a reply to PJ S' post when I see there have been replies since, duplicating my points. Ah well, I've written it now:
^^^^Yes, that price drop was exactly what I was referring to. Removing Monta watches from the bricks & mortar AD chain allowed them to strip out the AD margin and sell for circa 30% cheaper online & direct. They did offer those who bought at the higher original AD price (and were rightly pissed off) their choice of partial refund or some refund plus discount off their next Triumph field watch release. I don't know if that panned out for everyone - presumably some owners might have sold the watches already - but at least they faced-up to their error.
I agree it was a flawed approach from the start - at their original pricing any totally brand new company without marketing clout would have struggled at that level for a first time out, even though the watches had evident quality (if you knew what to look for - not sure Average Joe goes that far). And retailers weren't falling over themselves to take the risk either. Entering a congested dive watch market didn't help. I suppose they had to either curtail their ambitions or hit the wall.
I'm aware they have made some disappointing back-tracks on quality - I can't be bothered to look the details up, but as well as dropping the Eterna in the Triumph, they used flat sapphire crystals instead of domed, and non colour-matched date wheels etc. Supposedly those choices were made voluntarily after feedback - I'm not so sure.
I agree the purpose for ditching Eterna is probably cost trimming rather than any concern for future servicing.
I don't mind a higher quality Sellita movement, properly regulated. It's probably the right choice for watches at this price point, and removes (some) worries about whether Monta will still be around in 20 years for spare parts etc. (at least on the movement, anyway). Besides, their Triumph uses the SW300 which is a clone of the good-quality 2892 anyway.
I've had a look at reviews etc. of their releases since the Oceanking debacle, and I still like what they're doing, especially around timing regulation, bracelet quality, case finishing, rhodium-plated faceted hands etc. In fact, I keep an eye on the Oceanking in second-hand sakes, because it's a watch I thought was really excellent when it was released. A new Triumph at current prices is attractive too though.
^^^^Yes, that price drop was exactly what I was referring to. Removing Monta watches from the bricks & mortar AD chain allowed them to strip out the AD margin and sell for circa 30% cheaper online & direct. They did offer those who bought at the higher original AD price (and were rightly pissed off) their choice of partial refund or some refund plus discount off their next Triumph field watch release. I don't know if that panned out for everyone - presumably some owners might have sold the watches already - but at least they faced-up to their error.
I agree it was a flawed approach from the start - at their original pricing any totally brand new company without marketing clout would have struggled at that level for a first time out, even though the watches had evident quality (if you knew what to look for - not sure Average Joe goes that far). And retailers weren't falling over themselves to take the risk either. Entering a congested dive watch market didn't help. I suppose they had to either curtail their ambitions or hit the wall.
I'm aware they have made some disappointing back-tracks on quality - I can't be bothered to look the details up, but as well as dropping the Eterna in the Triumph, they used flat sapphire crystals instead of domed, and non colour-matched date wheels etc. Supposedly those choices were made voluntarily after feedback - I'm not so sure.
I agree the purpose for ditching Eterna is probably cost trimming rather than any concern for future servicing.
I don't mind a higher quality Sellita movement, properly regulated. It's probably the right choice for watches at this price point, and removes (some) worries about whether Monta will still be around in 20 years for spare parts etc. (at least on the movement, anyway). Besides, their Triumph uses the SW300 which is a clone of the good-quality 2892 anyway.
I've had a look at reviews etc. of their releases since the Oceanking debacle, and I still like what they're doing, especially around timing regulation, bracelet quality, case finishing, rhodium-plated faceted hands etc. In fact, I keep an eye on the Oceanking in second-hand sakes, because it's a watch I thought was really excellent when it was released. A new Triumph at current prices is attractive too though.
PJ S said:
You’re being shafted is nothing more than my being facetious, but it’s disappointing nonetheless to see they’ve ditched Eterna in favour of Sellita – that Cal.39 is available in a number of configurations, not least one being GMT.
No worries, I didn't think you were being too serious 
I can understand why they've chosen the Sellita route even if it isn't the most original of moves. Given that prices appear to have dropped again and they're still chronometer rated (though no mention of COSC certification, interestingly) I can forgive them.
Thanks everyone! Been very insightful, however I'm still as undecided as I was before, as I'm currently leaning towards the Zodiac.
Saying that I still very much like the look of the Skyquest and I don't think the price point is that bad. I'm going to think about it for a few weeks before I make a choice, as mentioned in my first post, I'll most likely end up with both, maybe I go with the zodiac first and wait for a used Skyquest to appear somewhere later in the year.
Saying that I still very much like the look of the Skyquest and I don't think the price point is that bad. I'm going to think about it for a few weeks before I make a choice, as mentioned in my first post, I'll most likely end up with both, maybe I go with the zodiac first and wait for a used Skyquest to appear somewhere later in the year.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff