# Steinhart Ocean One vs. Bebaufre Ocean 1 -- A CLOSE CALL



## Louisaz (Sep 3, 2006)

I recently purchased a 2-month old Debaufre Ocean 1 in pristine condition. Yesterday, I received a BNIB Steinhart Ocean One from Gunter. 







As there are other reviews and many pics of the Debaufre Ocean 1 on the WUS forums, I will offer my opinion of both watches with an emphasis on the Steinhart Ocean One -- with the _new_ back and bezel.







The Steinhart with the new bezel







Steinhart Ocean One bracelet

My personal scores follow [S=Steinhart; D=Debaufre]
*ACCURACY:* Both are gaining approx. 3 seconds/day EXCELLENT: S10/B10
*CASE FIT & FINISH:* Both are EXCELLENT with no visible defects: S10/B10
*BEZEL DESIGN, ACTION, ALIGNMENT:* Personal design preference (both have very vulnerable luminous pips at 12:00); S has 120 clicks; D has 60: S8/B7
*FACE, FACE MARKINGS, HANDS, FINISH, DESIGN:* Nearly identical; S is darker "ink black" and has slightly larger round hour markings; S hr and min hands are larger and more legible: S9/D8
*LUME ON FACE MARKINGS AND HANDS:* Both are relatively _inferior_ Super-Luminova C1 (compared to Seiko, Victorinox, Omega, Rolex, Citizen, etc.): S7/D7
*CROWN ACTION:* S is "adequate," but D screws down more easily and with more engaged threads: S8/D10
*CASE BACK:* Design, engraving, etc.: New S is more complex and attractive, but the machine-cut edges are sharp: S9/D8
*BRACELET:* Fit, finish, design, clasp: New S has screwed links but clasp is more difficult to open; the D has a wetsuit extension, the S does not: S9/D8
*PACKAGING:* Protection: Both are comparable -- nice but nothing really special: S7/D7
*VALUE:* Quality/Price ratio: Both have same great specs and comparable prices: S10/D10

*CONCLUSION:*

I like both watches very much. From a strictly personal design preference I prefer the LOOK of the Steinhart for the following reasons: bezel edge, darker black face with slightly larger circular hour markings on the face. Also, the hour and minute hands of the Steinhart are larger and more legible. However, the Debaufre's clasp is much easier to remove [I'll have to tweak the clasp on the Steinhart]. The screwed bracelet link pins on the Steinhart bracelet are excellent, secure and make sizing the bracelet a breeze.

If you are a big fan of the enduring, functional good looks of the Rolex Explorer [I am] and are not _embarrassed_ to wear a "homage" [I'm not] then the comparative VALUE of either watch should grab your attention. Both watches appear to be manufactured by the same Swiss shop with a few subtle differences in the parts used to define the two brands. The faces are slightly different; the bezels are (now) _completely_ different; the case backs are different; the hour and minute hands are thicker on the Steinhart; and the bracelets have different pins -- friction on the Debaufre and screws on the Steinhart. Both watches sell new and delivered for just over $400, which IMHO is a GREAT value for an attractive, classic diver with outstanding specs: An accurate, Swiss ETA 2824-2 movement; 300m WR; sapphire lens; stainless case and steel bracelet; good to excellent fit and finish; good warranty and service after the sale.

I feel much more comfortable wearing either of these watches than a Rolex Submariner that costs 10X as much and the required periodic servicing of which costs as much as either of the watches above. Either watch should be a great "every day" timepiece that can be worn to the office, the beach, or boardroom.

IF Steinhart would improve their lum on the face and hands -- and redesign the exposed, vulnerable, luminous pip on the bezel, I'd buy another one _tomorrow!_


----------



## usbzoso (Dec 11, 2010)

Louisaz said:


> IF Steinhart would improve their lum on the face and hands -- and redesign the exposed, vulnerable, luminous pip on the bezel, I'd buy another one _tomorrow!_


Well put and great review Louis. I never realized the difference in bracelets until i read your review. Wish there was a similar review to compare/contrast 39mm/42mm Debaufre and wish Steinhart would make a 39mm model. Definitely one of these two watches are best everyday beater one can get for the money. With that said i am hunting for 39mm Debaufre to complete my collection.


----------



## jfdupuis (Jun 14, 2009)

I've had both as well and your comment about the crown couldn't be more accurate. Although the Steinhart screws in too, the Debaufre was much smoother and easier to do. As far as the lume, the new Vintage models offer C3 lume which really kicks ass. I'm waiting for my new Ocean 1 Vintage GMT as we speak. I hope it shows up in the next couple of days! It'd be nice to get it before christmas.

Cheers,

JF


----------



## nullidentitat (Sep 29, 2008)

New Steinhart bezel looks *much* better. The top to bottom cuts always bothered me.


----------



## Louisaz (Sep 3, 2006)

JF,

You're spot on. What I'm finding with the Steinhart crown is that you have to press directly inward with a good deal of force before you begin to screw in the crown. I'm guessing (but not certain) that an enlarged gasket on the Steinhart may be the reason for the different crown actions -- in addition to the longer, threaded stem tube [confirmed by Jeff at Debaufre]. The Steinhart crown DOES engage and is probably secure and watertight, but the Debaufre does have more threading and IMHO feels more secure. The lume on both watches really does SUCK, which is inexcusable. I like the looks of the Vintage GMT and the Vintage Red Ocean One, but the plexiglas lens is really a scratch magnet. So...why doesn't Steinhart use SL C3 on their typical Ocean One? Beats me. I'd pay a few more bucks.


----------



## Louisaz (Sep 3, 2006)

I personally agree. The Debaufre bezel edge appears to be cast and polished and not machine cut like the Steinhart. I prefer the machine tool look. Also, the Steinhart has 120 clicks not 60.


----------



## homathetes (Dec 2, 2009)

Good, detailed comparison! Man, you are super concise!!


----------



## Goalie (Jan 14, 2007)

Thank you for the excellent review. I'm getting one or the other this January and this helped a lot. Leaning heavily to the Steinhart


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Louisaz said:


> The lume on both watches really does SUCK, which is inexcusable. I like the looks of the Vintage GMT and the Vintage Red Ocean One, but the plexiglas lens is really a scratch magnet. So...why doesn't Steinhart use SL C3 on their typical Ocean One? Beats me. I'd pay a few more bucks.


Inexcusable? Isn't subjectivity a wonderful thing? As difficult as it might be to believe, some of us don't place "blazing" lume and scratch-resistant crystals high on our list of requirements for a watch. Especially not for homages of designs that didn't have such features to begin with. For someone who claims to be a proponent of homage pieces, perhaps you should compare the Steinhart's lume to that of an original Submariner?

A well executed homage takes into consideration which materials best capture the feel of the original. My subjective opinion is that the use of a 'weaker' lume and a plastic crystal give a watch a softer, more vintage appearance. I like the look of a marked up case and a scratched crystal, not to mention its feel under my fingers. Perhaps Steinhart built the Ocean 1 with people like me in mind and wasn't concerned about including 'higher-spec' items in its construction, after all, there are plenty of other watches in the Steinhart collection that satisfy those needs.


----------



## delco714 (Nov 30, 2010)

I liked your review, very similar to mine (on the Steinhart GMT) https://www.watchuseek.com/f275/my-new-ocean1-gmt-plus-review-477735.html

I would prefer the Steinhart over the Debaufre, and my biggest complaint it the SL C1. Please, why not C3?!

I am so happy the changed the GMT (and all the s.hart) bezel and a few other things. Just made a great watch even better!


----------



## edwinwalke (Aug 9, 2010)

I agree with the SL C3 over the C1. I really like the dial on my Ocean One Vintage Red -- Markers on the dial in my opinion are much nicer. Be nice to see that dial on the entire Ocean line. Having said that I plan to buy the GMT Ocean 1 Blue Red next week. Love the new case back and bezel -- the watch really looks some much like the 1675 Rolex GMT Master I bought in 1972 and sold about tens years ago to finance a new Omega SMP 2054.50.


----------



## jfdupuis (Jun 14, 2009)

I had a Steinhart VIntage red with Saphire crystal. I got it as a replacement after the original plexiglass cracked on me. I loved how the plexiglass looked though. My new Ocean Vintage GMT should be here tomorrow! Can't wait! C3 lume with saphire crystal! Should be a kickass combination.

JF


----------



## delco714 (Nov 30, 2010)

jfdupuis said:


> I had a Steinhart VIntage red with Saphire crystal. I got it as a replacement after the original plexiglass cracked on me. I loved how the plexiglass looked though. My new Ocean Vintage GMT should be here tomorrow! Can't wait! C3 lume with saphire crystal! Should be a kickass combination.
> 
> JF


I'm envious!!!! I want C3! :-(


----------



## watch.aholic (Jan 19, 2011)

Any idea how if one can order a Steinhart Ocean I with C3 instead of C1?
I would love to have better lume on this. It would just edge towards perfection if it had C3.


----------



## Kwabbernoot (Jan 15, 2011)

Buy a Vintage Red, a Black DLC or a Vintage GMT and you have C3.


----------



## Bertelsen (Oct 24, 2010)

You can try to ask Gunter about putting a sappire on the Ocean 1 vintage red?


----------



## watch.aholic (Jan 19, 2011)

Kwabbernoot said:


> Buy a Vintage Red, a Black DLC or a Vintage GMT and you have C3.


I could but then I don't want painted hand markers on the dial as I prefer them applied alongwith the chrome outline.

Vintage GMT is a completely different watch all together.....different dial....different bezel insert....different hands....


----------



## edwinwalke (Aug 9, 2010)

watch.aholic said:


> I could but then I don't want painted hand markers on the dial as I prefer them applied alongwith the chrome outline.
> 
> Vintage GMT is a completely different watch all together.....different dial....different bezel insert....different hands....


I am sure that Gunter has provided Ocean Vintage Reds with the Sapphire crystal but that doesn't solve the painted hand marker problem. I have a VR and just got a GMT Ocean Pepsi and actually love both dials and boy the C3 lume is Sooo much better. I am waiting to see what the new Oceans look like - lots of rumor and should be announced soon. I sent Gunter an email thanking him for the replacement they did for the GMT Ocean Pepsi (GMT hand misalignment and old bezel on first one shipped) and I asked about the new Oceans and haven't heard back.


----------



## a pine tree (Sep 15, 2010)

watch.aholic said:


> I could but then I don't want painted hand markers on the dial as I prefer them applied alongwith the chrome outline.


I'd say your best option would be to get an Ocean and then have it relumed.


----------



## militaryfan (Feb 1, 2010)

In my personal opinion the Debaufre doesn't stand a chance against the Steinhart based on the bezel alone.


----------



## watch.aholic (Jan 19, 2011)

a pine tree said:


> I'd say your best option would be to get an Ocean and then have it relumed.


Any idea if Steinhart permits these little mods at the time of ordering?


----------



## a pine tree (Sep 15, 2010)

watch.aholic said:


> Any idea if Steinhart permits these little mods at the time of ordering?


I'd say not, based on the fact that Gunter no longer even does dial-swaps (e.g. the VR dial in the DLC case). Shouldn't deter you from getting the watch as there are legitimate operations who will do this for you (roughly $60ish, maybe... not sure).


----------



## hooperman42 (May 12, 2006)

Debaufres are the old steinharts.


----------

