ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
23 October 2009, 05:37 PM | #61 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: --
Watch: TOG,2DJ,1680,5513
Posts: 148
|
I own an Orange PO and have owned a sub. I like both. IMO, the PO has a nicer sapphire crystal (blue tint) and has a more solid feel. However, the sub is a classic and will always be recognisable.
|
25 October 2009, 10:25 AM | #62 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,753
|
|
29 October 2009, 07:42 PM | #63 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 446
|
i own both!
i wear the PO whenever i feel like abit of colour :D |
4 November 2009, 06:28 PM | #64 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: united states
Posts: 44
|
That will definitely be my upgrade, i always wanted the submarine, still haven't find a good deal yet.
|
10 November 2009, 07:09 AM | #65 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dallas tx
Watch: 16610,1675,16030
Posts: 1,136
|
I think it's strange that these threads about how "My Seamaster is just as good as a Submariner and it's cheaper and all. No! Really!!" come up all the time.
I never have seen a Sub owner trying to convince others that his watch is just as good as a Seamaster or a P.O. I've owned both and the In-House movt. of the Rolex is the main basis for it's superiority. Omega is trying so hard to move in to Rolex's level of prestige that they've come up with their own new movt. which has no heritage and questionable durability. In regards to the bracelet, the Omega does feel very nice in the hand, however the lack of fine adjustment always bothered me. Weight is not the final word as far as quality goes and the Rolex bracelet is comfortable and has never let me down. |
10 November 2009, 11:38 AM | #66 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,753
|
Have to contest the presumption of Rolex superiority and respectfully note that such a presumption exists only on account of price. There is no way an objective comparison ends with the Sub in the lead. A lower price point is only an admirable benefit. The Seamasters simply have more detail and a greater gravitas with respect to appearance and feel. Many others who could have had either simply chose Omega.
|
10 November 2009, 08:54 PM | #67 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: John
Location: Scotland
Watch: SD 50th Ann
Posts: 444
|
The Deep Sea clasp is a real step forward for Rolex, but the lesser models still suffer from the old pressed steel, flimsy feel type. I know they're being upgraded slowly.
For me it's about the feel of when I set the time on my Omegas v's my Rolexes. The Omega feels lilke the hands are directly connected to the crown. The Rolex 'slaps' about the place and the time is difficult to set in comparison when I'm trying to set it very accurately. |
10 November 2009, 09:04 PM | #68 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Real Name: dan
Location: Pennsylvania
Watch: keystone pocket
Posts: 5,915
|
Quote:
|
|
10 November 2009, 11:25 PM | #69 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: Ben
Location: New England, USA
Watch: Sub, Pam164, PO-XL
Posts: 383
|
Quote:
My situation might be a bit different, as I have nearly 8.5" wrists. So size, was a major contributor to my decision. Also, I think the PO bracelet is way more comfortable than the Oyster bracelet. Just my $0.02....
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ |
|
11 November 2009, 03:30 AM | #70 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tejas
Watch: your step
Posts: 2,806
|
I own two of each (PO and SMP from Omega, Daytona and Sub from Rolex), and in terms of accuracy, it's a hands-down win for the Rolexes. Since I set them all last Sunday for DST, the Sub has gained roughly a second a day, while the SMP is already about 40 seconds fast. However, the SMP is several months newer, and may slow up a bit after it's been broken in, we shall see...
The PO is faring much better, it's running about 2.5 seconds fast. The king is the Daytona, which is losing about 0.75 seconds per day. The Daytona is the most precise of the bunch; it's been maintaining less-than-one-second accuracy pretty much since I purchased it (the Sub has also been running a very consistent +1 or so since I got it); the PO is very good as well, but it isn't as consistent. So movement-wise, I'd say that at least in my case, the Rolexes are doing a better job, but I still love my Omegas. Value-wise, they're pretty tough to beat, and appearance-wise, they are top notch. In terms of solidity, they're built like tanks, no complaints there. Movement-wise, as reported by Larry and others, the Rolex movements incorporate several notable improvements over the Omega movements, but the ETA movements in the Omegas are excellent movements and are quite robust, so I wouldn't let that make the decision for me either, with one caveat: from what I've read the balance bridge on the Rolex does offer superior shock protection to the balance cock in the Omega, so if you're quite tough on your watches (I'm not) this might be something worth noting. If service is important, I will say that I've heard a number of unfavorable reviews of Omega's service as compared to Rolex's, but that's nothing a good independent watchmaker can't cure. Personally, I am happy as a clam with all of my watches, have nothing bad to say about any of them. Here are two good articles from WatchTime magazine testing both watches. Hopefully these will address the OP's questions: SS Sub date: http://www.watchbizz.com/archive/wt_...003_06_102.pdf Omega PO: http://www.watchbizz.com/archive/wt_...005_03_050.pdf
__________________
116520 white; 16613 black; 116710; 16570 polar; 16600. AP 15400; 15703. Blancpain Fifty Fathoms. Glashutte Sport Evo GMT. Omega Planet Ocean 2907.50.91; Planet Ocean Liquidmetal LE 222.30.42.20.01.001; Seamaster 2255.80.00. Breitling Crosswind, white. Panerai PAM 005. VC Overseas Chrono, black. |
11 November 2009, 12:42 PM | #71 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Joey
Location: Dallas, TX
Watch: SS Sub 16610 M
Posts: 3,824
|
Quote:
The Sub is a classic watch pure and simple. The PO is a recent incarnation of an older Seamaster. I've owned both and though the PO is a good buy for the money, there is no substitute for the Sub in my opinion. I'm personally also tired of all these comparos from Omega forums all over, if you have to justify a purchase of the PO based on whether it is equal or better than the Sub, then you might as well get the benchmark in the first place. I say get both and be done with it.
__________________
Current Rotation: Rolex Submariner Date (M) - 1/08, Rolex Milgauss GV (V) - 2/10, Rolex SS Black Daytona (V) - 6/10, Rolex GMTIIC (G) - 5/11, TAG Heuer Silverstone (286/1860) - 1/2015 Former-watches: Omega PO/2535.80/2254, TAG Carrera/F1x2/Monaco, Panerai 312K/292L Wish List: Panerai 270/505, Rolex SMURF, Rolex RG Daytona, Rolex DSSD |
|
11 November 2009, 12:48 PM | #72 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Joey
Location: Dallas, TX
Watch: SS Sub 16610 M
Posts: 3,824
|
Quote:
I feel like I could almost rip it open if I had to.
__________________
Current Rotation: Rolex Submariner Date (M) - 1/08, Rolex Milgauss GV (V) - 2/10, Rolex SS Black Daytona (V) - 6/10, Rolex GMTIIC (G) - 5/11, TAG Heuer Silverstone (286/1860) - 1/2015 Former-watches: Omega PO/2535.80/2254, TAG Carrera/F1x2/Monaco, Panerai 312K/292L Wish List: Panerai 270/505, Rolex SMURF, Rolex RG Daytona, Rolex DSSD |
|
12 November 2009, 12:18 AM | #73 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: massachusetts
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 1,678
|
Really what? Like you, I have personal experience with both and I do currently own both. I prefer the PO on virtually all fronts.
The PO definitely has more wrist presence and has a more solid feel on the wrist than the Sub. I think the solid links on the bracelet look and feel better. I personally think the PO is the more handsome watch...the slightly domed crystal, matte dial, and the silver ring on the PO face give it a far more unique character than the Rolex sub face IMO. And the arrow hands are way cool. The PO also keeps better time than my sub ( though, of course, these are my watches) and has waaaay better lume. For a dive/sport watch, it's better to have better lume. Finally, the dial is certainly more legible than my Sub. I love the fact that the crystal disappears into the dial on the PO. Others may like the Sub better and I'm sure people can reasonably argue on many fronts ( as some have done in this thread), but I don't think the comparison is unjustified at all ( as you seem to imply). The Omega PO is a real good watch. It may not have the name cachet as compared to the Sub....and many may care, but I personally don't. In this particular instance, going against the grain ( at least in reference to the masses) is appropriate to me. In comparing it to the "benchmark" as you say, the PO wins IMO. Quote:
|
|
12 November 2009, 03:50 AM | #74 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Joey
Location: Dallas, TX
Watch: SS Sub 16610 M
Posts: 3,824
|
Different strokes for different folks.
Agree to disagree.
__________________
Current Rotation: Rolex Submariner Date (M) - 1/08, Rolex Milgauss GV (V) - 2/10, Rolex SS Black Daytona (V) - 6/10, Rolex GMTIIC (G) - 5/11, TAG Heuer Silverstone (286/1860) - 1/2015 Former-watches: Omega PO/2535.80/2254, TAG Carrera/F1x2/Monaco, Panerai 312K/292L Wish List: Panerai 270/505, Rolex SMURF, Rolex RG Daytona, Rolex DSSD |
12 November 2009, 04:29 AM | #75 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: canada
Watch: 16610 - Y
Posts: 95
|
Apparently there have been some problems with the co-axial escapement, but that aside...I chose a sub. I chose it because I liked the look better. If someone likes the look of a PO better, that's what they should buy. I also think the original sub fold-over clasp is better from a longevity standpoint. I do like the AR on the PO and wish Rolex would bloody well give in.
|
20 November 2009, 11:33 PM | #76 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pasig City
Posts: 125
|
Omega PO watch your buying the looks . Rolex Sub it's the prestige your getting but when you wear rolex this days people think at least 80% of them that your wearing "fake" but I don't care..
|
21 November 2009, 03:12 AM | #77 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Reno, Nv, USA
Posts: 48
|
Honestly, I find these threads a bit petty. Each of these watches is excellent. If you are happy when you look at your wrist, you have the right watch. If not, you need to get something else.
My choice, Rolex. No Omega. I like them both. Hell there are alot of watches I like and only a few that I don't. Upgrade shmupgrade. Enjoy your watch (s) and do not overthink it as it takes away from the experience. Happy Holidays |
21 November 2009, 06:27 AM | #78 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Dan
Location: Essex, UK
Watch: West Ham! COYI!!
Posts: 7,941
|
WINNER!!!!!
|
21 November 2009, 09:33 AM | #79 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Real Name: Nick
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: your target
Posts: 157
|
keep the PO. is it coaxial?
get the GMT IIc if you want something that will compete with the luster of the PO, but keep the Omega. |
21 November 2009, 09:40 AM | #80 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Real Name: Brandon
Location: Indy: GO COLTS!!!
Watch: Omega Seamaster PO
Posts: 337
|
Yes, the Planet ocean has the co-axial escapement.
|
9 December 2009, 02:11 AM | #81 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Aaron
Location: MA
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 501
|
If you don't know what to do, just get yourself a replica to determine how much you really like the watch (Just kidding, sort of). Wear it for a few weeks, and if it still is what you wanted, then make the plunge and get yourself a genuine.
The other thing i've noticed about the PO is nobody will ever ask you if it's real? When you wear the Sub somoene will eventually ask you. I've had a few Omega's and i'm a proud owner of a PO 42mm Black Bezel with White numbers. Classic looking watch with modern highlights. It is an amazing watch. After you get used to the weight, you feel strange with anything lighter or missing from your wrist. The SS looks amazing under certain light. The only thing I'd do different on the PO is remove the HE valve. I'm not a diver and the watch would look cleaner for me without it. I've also owned an Aqua Terra but sold it becasue the speed clasp was crap. Kept opening all the time when my wrist bent in. Terrible clasp design IMO. I had to have a Rolex so I got an Exp II White Dial. I didn't want the Sub as my 1st Rolex becasue everyone has them, and I'm not somone who wants to show off, "hey look i have a Rolex". I'm also not a Diver so the Explorer II was the right tool for the job. With everything i've just said and belive in my heart...i still want the Classic Sub!!!! Why?!!!! However, even thought i'm not a diver, I will never sacrifice my PO for a Sub! |
10 December 2009, 09:20 PM | #82 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scandinavia
Watch: ♛
Posts: 1,330
|
After owning 16610, 16800 and a 5513 I'm sorry to say subs are nothing for me although I love Rolex. I'm not really an Omega fan but for sports (diving, hunting, running...) i use the smaller/lighter 42mm PO, better lume, bezel and moves around less with a rubber strap on. Here's my PO
__________________
Insta |
10 December 2009, 09:35 PM | #83 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Not here anymore
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
11 December 2009, 04:34 AM | #84 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Aaron
Location: MA
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 501
|
I'm not insulting you or EVERY person that owns a sub. My point is....I didn't want the Sub as my 1st Rolex becasue everyone has them, and I'm not somone who wants to show off, "hey look i have a Rolex".
|
9 January 2010, 12:03 AM | #85 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,430
|
I just read this whole thing. I thought I might bring this thread back to life. I used to own Explorer II so I would know how the bracelets are on the watch. I do believe the bracelet on the PO is far more superior for many factors.
1. On the Sub, the inner clasps used to rub with the links inside of the band leaving wear marks. The PO doesn't have these clasps to leave extra wear marks. 2. The Sub has these clasps that wear/tear bend over in time. 3. The way the watch sits on your wrist is heck of a lot better than the way the Sub would because of these folding clasps. I do acknowledge that the Sub uses screw pins to remove extra links. I do believe that is easier for watch owners to change whenever they wish. Until the Sub upgrades its bracelet and gets rid of the "thin" clasps, I personally don't believe it is an upgrade from a PO. You could buy two POs for the price of one Sub. That just says something. Doesn't it?
__________________
2 FACTOR AUTHENTICATION ENABLED. |
9 January 2010, 03:11 AM | #86 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: John
Location: Washington
Watch: 16710, 16610, DJ
Posts: 7,329
|
Quote:
Say what you want about what that means, but it's my take on things. I will continue to wear my SMP (today, in fact) and enjoy it, but strapping on a Rolex is like coming home; it just feels right. |
|
9 January 2010, 03:12 AM | #87 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: John
Location: Washington
Watch: 16710, 16610, DJ
Posts: 7,329
|
|
9 January 2010, 11:58 AM | #88 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto
Watch: GMTIIC TT & PAM312
Posts: 51
|
PO and Sub SS are on par. I had both and swapped the Sub for the PO based on size weight. Then I swapped the PO for a Tag Grand Carerra Chrono and "game over"....
Big Watches Rule |
9 January 2010, 10:48 PM | #89 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Gerardus
Location: EU
Watch: ♕
Posts: 11,916
|
Each their own, i love both brands!
__________________
♕16570 ♕126610 ♕126333 |
9 January 2010, 11:51 PM | #90 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scandinavia
Watch: ♛
Posts: 1,330
|
Quote:
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.