|
I think that in a lot of ways it comes down to the fact that these are two companies with similar missions and completely different approaches. Rolex has established its reputation firmly on the idea of the timeless, classic, tried-and-true provision of watches that change only incrementally; a new Datejust or a Sub looks instantly like one that was made forty years ago or more. The movements and materials improve (glacially perhaps) over time, but the look is the statement of quality.
Omega, on the other hand, has a long tradition of more bold innovation and bigger creative departures (which makes it all the more ironic that its single best known timepiece is a watch that has remained unchanged for nearly half a century, the Speedy Moonwatch). So there are many more modern looks and varieties both inside and outside the watch case with Omega - you can get some of their models in several sizes (true for Rolex in certain cases as well), or in automatic or quartz (not true of Rolex anymore, obviously). But even with that, some Omega models now have a longevity that isn't that far off of what we expect from Rolex - just consider the Seamaster Professional Diver model (yes, the Pierce Brosnan Bond watch), that has been incrementally improved since it first appeared in 1993. Even the current iteration (2012) is immediately recognizable for what it is, after 22 years. Somehow I don't think Omega will change the look of that watch much in the years to come.
Just my two cents ...
|