Originally Posted by mondodec
It's always a tad dangerous in an Omega forum to insinuate that Rolex 2012 is "better" than Omega, because the first question that will be asked is, by what criteria do you wish to make the comparison :)
Historically, Rolex ate Omega's dust until the Swiss crisis in the late seventies. In fact Rolex wasnt even a real manufacture until the onset of the cal 15xx series and not fully a manufacture until it ditched the Zenith chronograph for one of its own making. The point I'm trying to make here is that Rolex, being a private trust and not a mega conglomerate like the SSIH group, weathered the storm a lot better and seized the opportunity to win market share, which it did brilliantly. IMO any marketing student should be made to study the post seventies Rolex marketing triumph because it changed perceptions about quality and brand. The opposite happened to Omega, which, under Hayek, underwent a twenty-year rehab and reconstruction program culminating firstly in the Daniels fix on modified 2892s and then the release of the calibre 8500.
Mind you, Rolex nearly did itself in with the earlier versions of the cal 3035, which had a litany of issues before they were rectified, but the cal 31xx series, now well over twenty years in existence, is the series that has carried Rolex to this point. Before that, IMO, as far as fast-beats are concerned, forget it.
So when one poses the question is Omega as good as Rolex or indeed is Rolex is as good as Omega in 2012 you need to establish some benchmarks for a comparative analysis and perhaps incorporate a bit of history.
From the movement perspective, using criteria such as accuracy and reliability, it has been argued by respected horologists the web over that the cal 3135 is about as good as the ETA 2892 and vice versa. While both have their own idiosyncrasies and imperfections, the general consensus is that both of them deserve a place in the horological hall of fame in the category of mass-produced high value movements.
Comparing the cal 3135 with the Omega cal 8500, from my perspective, and parachrom hairspring notwithstanding, the 3135 is an old movement, whereas the co-axial calibre 8500 is a twenty-first century movement that uses newish materials and horology in interesting ways. It is superbly finished and in its four-odd years of production has not had any serious modifications or tweaks and is proving to be a superb movement, meeting criteria for accuracy and reliability effortlessly. Is it better than a 3135, who knows? It doesn't have the issues with the set wheel post or rotor post that the 3135 has, but time is needed (a decade) to see if other design or manufacture issues emerge before anyone could declare the 8500 superior.
Arguably, Rolex bracelets still have an edge over Omega, but in terms of case construction and finish, both are excellent. In terms of case design, both are extremely conservative, Rolex especially so, but Omega's designs are mainly derivative of 1950's industrial design, although just a tad edgier.
If we are talking about brand perceptions, that's another story. Generally speaking, in emergent and mature Asian, Russian and some European markets, Rolex is perceived to be an older generation brand whereas Omega is perceived to have more cachet amongst the 25-39 demographic. In the US Rolex has perhaps more status as it does in one or two other Western countries. But shared perceptions of status are just individual hallucinations that have gone viral and are easily manipulated by peers and advertising, hardly the stuff to make an assessment on which brand is "as good" or "better"
So, in 2012, perhaps it is more useful to rise above the fierce commercial rivalry between these brands and see the futility of 'barracking' for one brand over another. It could be nearer to reality to suggest that both Rolex and Omega are demonstrably two of the best mass-production veblen brands currently operating out of Switzerland.
Cheers
Desmond
|