Why I choose Omega Seamaster 300 Master Co-axial over Rolex Submariner

[jmsrolls]

https://agent909.wordpress.com/2015/...ex-submariner/

[Tudor66]

Interesting read. Another reason to appreciate Omega watches.

This model is too big for me, and it may be too big for the articles's author.

It's refreshing to hear someone say he isn't planning to ever sell his watches. If I had a dollar for every time I thought that- I would have a lot more dollars..!

[FTX I]

To each his own. Thanks for sharing Fr. John.

[locutus49]

The large watch fad is ending. There was a New York Times article on it. Then we will see how giant Omegas fare when everyone else is wearing a 38-40mm watch.

[AndyK]

Interesting article, but I don't agree that it has to be one over the other or either/or. I have both and while I agree that the Seamaster 300 stacks up favorably in terms of power reserve, magnetic resistance, and price, I still view my Sub as the regular daily wearer. The Seamaster gets worn as a "change of pace" and gets much less wrist time. I love the bracelet on the Seamaster but I tend to baby it to avoid scratching it.

[jmsrolls]

Originally Posted by locutus49

The large watch fad is ending. There was a New York Times article on it. Then we will see how giant Omegas fare when everyone else is wearing a 38-40mm watch.

The 300 Master Co-Axial is 41mm and wears smaller. It pairs up nicely with my FOIS which is 39.7mm and likewise wears smaller:



My 216570 EXPII and SMP 2254.50 (both 42mm) will soon be finding new homes leaving the 300 MC as the largest watch in my collection.

A couple of years ago, I spoke with an Omega development exec at the opening of the ATL Boutique who agreed that watches would be trending smaller. The FOIS and 300 MC may be indicative of that happening.

[tedscott3]

I have both and agree that they each have have their strong points. I give the edge to the Sub as a daily, but I really like the differences the SM has.

[warrior]

Still trying to defend Rolex against Omega? Trying to make yourself feel better by 1) pooh poohing the "competition" on a Rolex forum 2) in a situation where Rolex is BY FAR the most prestigious brand in the world for the masses? Laughable.

I don't know of many outside of TRF ( the Rolex Forums) that think that 41MM or 42mm is "giant" for a modern day sport watch. Ever think that people have grown in size a little since the 1950's? And I HATE the big watch trend. Even the classic Speedmaster Pro is 42mm.

Originally Posted by locutus49

The large watch fad is ending. There was a New York Times article on it. Then we will see how giant Omegas fare when everyone else is wearing a 38-40mm watch.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by locutus49

The large watch fad is ending. There was a New York Times article on it. Then we will see how giant Omegas fare when everyone else is wearing a 38-40mm watch.

The Omega is 41mm and wears SMALL..

I would have considered it if was 45.5mm

But I would never choose it over a Rolex Submariner...

[busytimmy]

Thanks for sharing. Three problems with that watch for mine: Thickness, lug to lug distance and the flashy polished links in the bracelet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nactex]

I am not a regular poster on this Forum, but I totally agree with Fr John on preferring the SM300 over the Submariner. That is why the Royal Navy picked the 300 over the 5517 on the first go round. That is why NASA picked the Speedmaster over the Daytona. Don't get me wrong, Rolex makes a superior albeit over priced watch, but after owning numerous Rolex watches, I have chosen to wear Omega watches because I like the style better, the quality overall is as good, and the price to purchase and repair is much more reasonable. Everyone has a different opinion on this and that is what makes the world go round.

[SUPERDOC]

As much as I prefer Omega, and will probably liquidate the Rolexes in my collection, I really dislike threads like this...
Not for any opinions registered or comments made, but because of what a thread like this represents....

It reeks of insecurity from the Seamaster owners...
I fully believe that the SM300 is a superior watch...
But I don't have to compare it to a Submariner to appreciate it...

Rolex owners don't feel the need to justify their decision... Neither should we...

Why is it that no one on the Rolex forum posts a thread about why his Submariner is better than the Seamaster...



On a personal aside...an article written by a medical student holds no value...
Show me an intern that only triples my workload, and I will kiss his feet! ;)

[tedscott3]

I check in from time to time on both the Rolex and Omega forums, and I think there is a difference between people saying they prefer one over the other and saying that one watch is better than the other. I think most Submariner owners (including myself) would not say the Sub is a better watch, but may say that they prefer it to the SM. As far as Omega's go, I think the watches are every bit as good as Rolex, but as others have pointed out they don't have the brand recognition or the resale that Rolex has.

I don't have a problem with SM owners saying why they prefer it to the Sub because a SM is less expensive and on paper like you pointed out it is technically every bit as good or better than the Sub. I find it interesting. The price difference is the value put on brand recognition and resale value.

[tedscott3]

That being said both of mine get equal wrist time. ImageUploadedByTapatalk1431442562.461549.jpg

[jmsrolls]

Actually I did not choose the Seamaster 300 MC over the Sub. Over the Sub, I chose what I consider to be the Rolex diver:



I've owned my share of Rolex watches including an 18k President with diamond markers but I've never been a fan of the Sub.

I've also owned several Omega divers (PloProf 1200, PO LM LE, 8500 PO, SMPs) but the 300 Master Co-Axial is in a league all its own. It seldom leaves my wrist:

[swils8610]

I really like the new Omega 300 but the lack of a date function is a deal breaker.

[Peroni1973]

Initial acknowledgement of my newbie status so please preface any reactions with that in mind.

I actually have two Planet Oceans - an older version in 42mm and a newer (but pre Liquid Metal) 45.5mm version...

...and I just bought my first Rolex, a 114060 but that said I actually really like the look of the Omega 300. Kind of vintage.

Whilst I am an avowed dive watch guy, I don't see any of these as being mutually exclusive.

JMHO.

Ben

[Bernie.H.]

Originally Posted by locutus49

The large watch fad is ending. There was a New York Times article on it. Then we will see how giant Omegas fare when everyone else is wearing a 38-40mm watch.

This gets my vote for the most idiotic post of the week. If you think that the average man is going to be wearing 38mm sports watches anytime in the future, you need to go and lie down in a dark room.

[Gregsubc]

who cares what everyone else is wearing? I don't live my life by what other people wear.

[jaime4022]

Originally Posted by warrior

Still trying to defend Rolex against Omega? Trying to make yourself feel better by 1) pooh poohing the "competition" on a Rolex forum 2) in a situation where Rolex is BY FAR the most prestigious brand in the world for the masses? Laughable.

I don't know of many outside of TRF ( the Rolex Forums) that think that 41MM or 42mm is "giant" for a modern day sport watch. Ever think that people have grown in size a little since the 1950's? And I HATE the big watch trend. Even the classic Speedmaster Pro is 42mm.

Why are you so sensitive, dude? The guy is not even referring solely to this model, but rather mentioning Omegas in general. Size is not only case diameter but also thickness. Sadly, Omega -- as fine as their movements and timepieces in general are -- can't seem to be able to make a decent sized sports watch with their new "in-house" calibers; especially where thickness is concerned! There is no reason in the world why a watch rated to 600m water resistance needs to be as thick as the planet ocean; the same goes for the beautiful Aqua terras with the 8500 movement.

[Syed117]

I definitely prefer Omega over Rolex and I really like the new 300, but I would not take it over a Sub.

Yes, the 300 is more unique and below the radar compared to the ubiquitous Sub, but to me the Sub is one of the most iconic watches of all time. The 300 has its place, but it's not a Sub.

[themaninblack]

The Omega is more elegant, the Rolex more chunky. Unfortunately Rolex Submariner and GMT's now look pretty much the same and I find the GMT BLNR a more useful watch and with the bezel a better looking watch than current Submariner. Omega case is very thick and the clasp is physically annoying. I hope the next iteration of the Submariner heads more towards it's roots with a more refined look and smaller or no crown guards, fashion and marketabilty will determine that direction ultimately.

[tedscott3]

Originally Posted by themaninblack

The Omega is more elegant, the Rolex more chunky. Unfortunately Rolex Submariner and GMT's now look pretty much the same and I find the GMT BLNR a more useful watch and with the bezel a better looking watch than current Submariner. Omega case is very thick and the clasp is physically annoying. I hope the next iteration of the Submariner heads more towards it's roots with a more refined look and smaller or no crown guards, fashion and marketabilty will determine that direction ultimately.

I like this SM because it is a vintage remake. The Sub is a nice looking watch, but it doesn't resemble Subs of the past like this SM does. I doubt that Rolex will make a throw back Sub because they are going in the opposite direction. Thicker lugs and crown guards.

[psv]

I really like the Seamaster 300. I wouldn't pick it over a Submariner as a one and only, but a nice watch to have in a modern diver collection.

[themaninblack]

Originally Posted by psv

I really like the Seamaster 300. I wouldn't pick it over a Submariner as a one and only, but a nice watch to have in a modern diver collection.

On pure style I think the Omega is the pick over the current Submariner, but of course there are other factors that come in to play.

[psv]

Originally Posted by themaninblack

On pure style I think the Omega is the pick over the current Submariner, but of course there are other factors that come in to play.

On pure style a dive watch with polished center links seldom wins...

[Cuts33]

Originally Posted by psv

On pure style a dive watch with polished center links seldom wins...

Agreed - but luckily there is an easy fix.

On pure style, I prefer the 114060 vs the SM300.

[T. Ferguson]

Essentially all I came away with is the author's specific need for magnet protection was filled by the Omega. I suppose he could have compared the Omega to any watch since that was his overwhelming concern.

It's certainly a quality piece and I own a couple of Omega SMs (both GMTs) but on this particular model I'm a little turned off by the polished lugs and center links on a dive watch.

[themaninblack]

Originally Posted by psv

On pure style a dive watch with polished center links seldom wins...

But it certainly does in this case.

The watch does not have polished centre links, the bracelet does. On the watch itself the Sub has more polished bits, look at the dial on that green Sub above, ouch it's hurting my eyes! How about white gold borders on the lume plots on a dive watch! But these Seamasters and Submariners are not "dive watches" except in the marketing. Very few people dive with them, they take them on holidays to the Caribbean and go out for dinner in them.

[tedscott3]

Originally Posted by themaninblack

But it certainly does in this case.

The watch does not have polished centre links, the bracelet does. On the watch itself the Sub has more polished bits, look at the dial on that green Sub above, ouch it's hurting my eyes! How about white gold borders on the lume plots on a dive watch! But these Seamasters and Submariners are not "dive watches" except in the marketing. Very few people dive with them, they take them on holidays to the Caribbean and go out for dinner in them.

You can't be serious. Subs and SM are not dive watches?! I get that a small percentage of people actually do dive with them, but to say they aren't dive watches is absurd.

You are incorrect about there being more polished bits on a Sub. The only polished parts are the sides of the case. Also the dial on certain Subs changes color based on light hitting it.