Omega vs Rolex

[uzona]

Have been buying from grey market reputable reselllers for years. Have bought several panerais, omegas and zeniths brand new with no qualms. The resellers I deal with have been in biz since the 70s and 80s and all have a top reseller rating with thousands of 5 star reviews. They usually far exceed the mfg warranty as well.

When you look at quality and style of these other brands, to me are equal or superior to the rolexes. i have never bought a watch with the intention of ever trading it in or reselling it so resale value is not an issue. Have accumulated a dozen of these beauties and enjoy rotating them on a weekly basis. Yes I truly LOVE nice watches!!

Rolexes 2-3x price difference can not be justified by me, all things considered.

[Doood]

I have owned a few speedmasters over the years and still think the speedy pro is a gateway drug to fine watch ownership. I have recently been drawn to the new Seamaster 300 coaxial. It is sexy in titanium, but can't get over the thickness, and as light as she is, still seems top heavy. Who knows, maybe that was an intentional design characteristic but can't bring myself to purchase one.

I am also not a fan of limited editions marketing gimmicks. I truly appreciate Rolex's conservative approach to brand management.

[uzona]

I have owned the steel on steel 300 for a couple years. Very cool piece and also relatively flat. It is very unique in its retro look while utilizing the co-axial escapement.

Even resellers only knock at most 5% off msrp on rollies. Omega is a great alternative if you want quality and the option of getting a variety of different pieces to change up.
Rolex is a name that gets premium price. If you need to maintain resale value its for you. If you want a variety and plan to keep several nice watches,
Omega is your brand.

[Marcus09]

IMG_0061.JPG

This is one of the many examples that should answer your thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChuckFinlay]

Just spent the last couple of weeks weighing up a Datejust 41 and an Aqua Terra with master coaxial. Ended up with the AT. Whichever way I span it, I just didn't see the extra almost £2000-£3000 (smooth vs fluted) in the DJ at actual buy prices.

Resale wise, maybe, but for the the discounted price of an AT at an AD vs discounted price of a DJ at an AD, I don't think in pounds it will be a big difference.

[htc8p]

After having both. rolex fits more to an older more refined taste. while omega is more of a younger trendy taste. so you really cant compare them based on those.

but both have nice build quality.

overall i give rolex the advantage.

[htc8p]

Originally Posted by Marcus09

Attachment 871384

This is one of the many examples that should answer your thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i have compared the po 8500 crown to the triplock crown and found that the screw down thread in the PO is more durable that the threads didnt get worn out as much

[Marcus09]

Originally Posted by htc8p

i have compared the po 8500 crown to the triplock crown and found that the screw down thread in the PO is more durable that the threads didnt get worn out as much

Neither get worn out. The question is, what happens if you forgot to close the crown:
1. One hit on a rock and the PO is done for.
2. The PO won't be waterproof anymore whereas the triplock will; believe me, I tried it by mistake on my Daytona where I forgot it open and nothing happened (though I panicked ).
3. That same triplock is the exact same one used on the submariner, the seadweller, and the deepsea (3900m) and also the same design as the deepsea challenge (over 10km).
4. Omega crowns don't get special treatments between their models; the crown wearing the (excellent) moonwatch (50m) is the same as their seamaster counterparts, with the difference that the latter models have the ability to lock down.
5. Please don't tell me how did you ever found out that the omega crown is more durable than that of Rolex since I, on my part, found out the hard way: my dad's omega crown just stopped working and as you know, that's the end of a watch life; whereas my uncle still has his old submariner and is in perfect condition.

I am sure that Omega are great watches and I always had omegas since 2002 (5 omegas in fact) but they're not even close to what Rolex watches are. My co-axial Aqua-terra (42.2mm) fell down on the floor while I was wearing it in my house and just stopped working. My diver 300 was going to fall down just because the bracelet lock decided to get loose for no reason... imagine that happened if I was swimming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by stillsane

I am relatively new to high-end watches but have seen and tried on many Rolex watches. Went to an Omega AD yesterday and tried on several nice watches and was a bit disappointed. Any thoughts?

Yes sounds like you prefer Rolex.

[irishusa]

Think Omega better than Rolex in some ways. More visible hands on Seamaster

[GTS Dean]

I obviously prefer Rolex, but have 2 Speedies (black and white dialed) in my collection. Like many here have noted, I have a real dislike for the thickness and top-heavy design of the Omega dive-rated models. I am very seriously considering flipping one of my OQ's for an AT 150. I think they are very handsome watches with great movements.

[Jack T]

Like many have noted, Omega's are thick, tall watches, especially the sport and dive models. I have a 42mm PO 2500, love the watch, the look and it keeps great time. But it does tend to wear a bit tall; likewise the AT - an aesthetic beauty in my opinion, looks great but thicker than it should be.
Every time I think the Planet Ocean will be the one I flip for a new piece, I just can't let it go, it's such a great watch.

[d.sane]

I prefer Rolex to Omega, not minding the model

[dave023]

IMHO Rolex has more iconic watches than Omega does. I'm still in love with my moonwatch.

[TK-710]

I feel with Omega you get similar quality to Rolex with similar aesthetics to Tudor. Omega definitely takes bolder risks. Not all are winners. What I don't like about Omega is that they are like that kid who can't sit still. About three or four years ago I wanted to buy the Aqua Terra with the framed date window. Now that's two models old.

[jbro352]

Originally Posted by JES77

I feel with Omega you get similar quality to Rolex with similar aesthetics to Tudor. Omega definitely takes bolder risks. Not all are winners. What I don't like about Omega is that they are like that kid who can't sit still. About three or four years ago I wanted to buy the Aqua Terra with the framed date window. Now that's two models old.

I agree. There are a lot of deviations stylistically, which makes for some really interesting things that don't last for very long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WJGESQ]

POs are fantastic.

[w!dowmaker]

I own a Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch. So far, the only iconic Omega I've ever wanted. I was just surprised to find out that they seem to cost more to have it serviced/overhauled as compared to a Sub, for example.

When I inquired with the RSC, overhaul for my 116610LN would be more or less $300, while my Speedy would be around $700 at the Omega Service Center. Is this really the case? And is it because my Omega is a manual winding 1861 movement?

[TimeOnHand]

Omega was my first experience with expensive watch almost 20 years ago! The Seamaster Diver 300m and Speedy Pro Moon watch are still one of my favourite watches!

Rolex... well what's not too love!

Both great watches... buy and wear what you love and don't settle for anything less than you want!

[chessebj]

Originally Posted by w!dowmaker

I own a Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch. So far, the only iconic Omega I've ever wanted. I was just surprised to find out that they seem to cost more to have it serviced/overhauled as compared to a Sub, for example.

When I inquired with the RSC, overhaul for my 116610LN would be more or less $300, while my Speedy would be around $700 at the Omega Service Center. Is this really the case? And is it because my Omega is a manual winding 1861 movement?

One is a chronograph, one isn't. Chronographs will, all things being equal, be more expensive to service.

[Jprieur]

Is it now safe to say that Omega has come a long way in their movements recently? 8900, etc.

10 years ago I looked at Omega as below Rolex overall, now that I have added some of the more recent movements from Omega to my collection I can't really say the same. PO 8900 has take over my Sub as my daily wear and GSOTM has become my preferred 'dressier' watch as I think it has such a subtle sophistication to it.

I am by no means a fan of the (too large for the wrist) watch movement, but after spending time with 42/43mm Omegas I find the typical Rolex case, even the newer style 42mm a bit too dainty looking for my taste. One thing I do prefer with Rolex is their oyster bracelet, far more attractive than the omega steel bracelet.

For my money its Omega for now.

[scotiasteve74]

I bought an Omega and always regretted not buying the Sub, so I bough a hulk and kept my PO :D

[chessebj]

I've owned a few of both, modern and vintage. I currently have a December '68 1675 GMT Master and a January '69 145.022-69 Speedy. I don't think there is any quality difference between them, though the Oyster bracelet is nicer than the 1171 (the Oyster I have is a newer one, installed in the early 80s, so that isn't fair). They do wear very differently. one thing to be cognizant of is that adjusting most Omega bracelets is much fiddler than Rolex bracelets, and many Omega bracelets don't have micro-adjustment in the clasp.

[Justinmg]

Originally Posted by SSCosmo

I own watches from both. Like others have said, there's room in one's collection for both, and it comes down to personal preferences. I bought my three Omegas for the following reasons:

(1) Omega has a much more diverse offering - in both aesthetics and functions. I really wanted a GMT Chronograph because I use both functions in my profession, and there is not one Rolex that provides those functions. Omega had two models to choose from at the time.
(2) Coaxial movement is much more interesting than anything Rolex has done recently on the movement side (though the Skydweller comes close).
(3) Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch - 'nuf said
(4) It's NOT a Rolex - This is a good thing sometimes, particularly when you don't want potential clients judging you just because you're wearing a Rolex. Also, living in Asia, there are so many fake Rolexes and everyone on the street seems to be wearing one, it's nice to be a bit different.
(5) Omega's customer service is very good - I've mostly had good experiences when I walk into an Omega AD or Boutique. Almost all of them have been friendly and helpful, no matter how I'm dressed or what watch I'm wearing. I can't say the same about most Rolex ADs I've visited. Rolex ADs are often staffed with salespeople who seem to know very little about the watches and who don't seem to want to show you watches or talk to you.
(6) Great after-purchase service - I accidentally dropped my 2-month old Seamaster on a tile floor once and they completely rebuilt the watch movement and didn't charge me a dime. And this was through an Omega Boutique that I never bought anything from. Many Boutiques also have a service tech on-site, who can help with little things like adjusting bracelets on the spot for free. I haven't had any experience with servicing my Rolexes yet, but few ADs seem to have techs on-site.

Agree

[sager]

Originally Posted by JES77

I feel with Omega you get similar quality to Rolex with similar aesthetics to Tudor. Omega definitely takes bolder risks. Not all are winners. What I don't like about Omega is that they are like that kid who can't sit still. About three or four years ago I wanted to buy the Aqua Terra with the framed date window. Now that's two models old.

Very well said!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LJG]

I prefer my 2500 aesthetic to the thicker 8500 and proportions of say the DSSD but I've found nice, complementary offerings in both brands

[Strummer]

2 Omegas, 3 Rolexes...like them both for different reasons. I still own the only two Omegas I've ever purchased. Sold plenty of Rolexes without regret.

[cfracing]

I feel the quality of the two brands is comparable. However, in general (not necessarily specific models) Rolex will hold their value better than Omega, if that is important to you.

For me, I would take a Sub over a Seamaster for a diving watch and an Explorer over an Aqua Terra Railmaster(?), but for a chronograph I would take a Speedmaster Moonwatch over a Daytona, and I am not basing my choice on the lower cost of the Speedy Pro.

[tamiya]

Takes too many braincells to recall all the different Omega models & variants, plus their weekly limited editions and geographical special releases...

[strafer_kid]

Both are great manufacturers and as someone has already mentioned, personal choice is probably the key here. Many might say that Rolex have an edge and it would be hard to disagree. That said, they do not endear themselves to many of their customers, particularly when it comes to servicing etc. Not sure how Omega are in that regard?