Omega head to head with Rolex

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by esm

as far as I know - the new Seamaster Aqua Terra has the 8500 and the De Ville Hour Vision has the 8501.

Not too sure what Speedy Pro Co-axial has.

It has the somewhat problematic cal. 3313, I know we had to send one back under guarantee recently. I'm hoping that the upcoming cal. 9300 will be better - I feel reliability is Omega's biggest shortcoming just at the present. However, once the teething problems are sorted, and if they can raise their brand perception high enough, they could well be a very major threat to Rolex's dominance

[Joey_V]

Pound for pound, I don't think Omega equals Rolex. Omega watches are nice but not at the same level from my experience. From design to execution, they are 1 step behind.

[jmsrolls]

Originally Posted by A.I.

I now own number 175 of 1948 produced and I LOVE it. What a watch.

I tried on (and lusted after) a GMTIIc, twice, before buying this watch. To me the Rolex was hugely disappointing. I had built up a mental image and feel well beyond it's ability. Rolex marketing is second to none. When I tried on the Liquid Metal it was instantly 'WOW'. At £3500 it is was worth every penny and more if I had to pay.

The wrist feel, the bracelet, the ceramic dial, the ceramic face and the invisible face put this watch into a superior league well beyond what the GMTIIc could only aspire to.

Just my opinion.

The GMT IIc and the LiquidMetal went head to head with me also as I ended up with both a couple of months ago:



So from my actual experience and IMO, the PO is a superior watch to the GMT IIc. As a matter of fact, the Rolex is on its way to RSC at the moment because of some issues that need to be addressed under warranty. But there are absolutely no issues with the Omega. It is as perfect a watch as I have ever owned. (I just wish it had something similar to Easylink.)

The GMT IIc replaced my two year old Explorer II and is a decision I have come to regret. When the new EXPII is available next year, I suspect the GMT IIc will be gone. I will either go with the new Explorer II or return to the old.

My first nice watch was an 18k Rolex President in 1983 which I sold 20 years later to fund my foray into Omegaland. Since then I have owned 70-80 Omegas without anything but good experiences.

But I will say that the new generation of Omegas is a major step in the right direction. The PloProf 1200m I received for Christmas was very impressive in all aspects of design, fit and finish. The DSSD pales in comparison. The PloProf was rather impractical for me and was replaced by the LiquidMetal which is another example of Omega's upward move.

Unfortunately, the move up comes at a price, literally and figuratively. The anticipated cal 8500 PO will be priced similarly to the Sub C and Omega is making an all out effort to end discounting and gray market.

Fr. John†

[pz93c]

In the late 60's, Omega was the watch to have.

Will they ever get that position back? I don't know. Rolex is a marketing juggernaut.

[Mystro]

Owning both,....The only thing Rolex does better than Omega is advertise and perhaps over charge their customers.
I never thought Rolex over priced their watches until I bought a Omega.

[asadtiger]

since we are openly discussing it here, what I dont get is the whole fret about Rolex making in-house movements...they just make ONE movement man...a simple one they've been making since ever, and add a date for date model, a GMT for GMT model, a DAY for another model and a chrono for another...thats it!...four models and ALL so similar with the same basic movement...that isn't much to boast about!and lately, rather than classic, I think making the same watch for more than fifty years is more generic literally..I mean they make a truly 'generic' watch when they make any of their current offerings, although they were original at it, but it was wayyy back...and I further find it very funny that the real diversity of Rolex, the cellini line, where they do actually offer different models and movts is completely neglected by all people that praise Rolex so much.

look at Omega...they make every complication, from split second to tourbillon, make hand wound as well as auto, even quartz, and make them in vastly different iterations...and make them beautiful!

So, being honest, I think Rolex is pure marketing...Omega is way far ahead anyway as a watch maker...and this is honestly just my humble opinion.

[colpol]

I hear where your coming from

I bought my Omega 7 years before my rolex & price possibly did play a big factor at the time

I'd never hear a bad word about my SMP & for the money - what a watch. My daily wearer for 10 years
The Rolex SD though is just a bit special

In terms of branding I think a Rolex will always be a rolex & what "most" people associate with that brand new i.e. a really expensive watch

I'm not sure that the brand "Omega" quite falls into that category yet. I think the Bond connection & that the fact that a lot of sports people/ celeb's have came on board as ambasadors has also certainly increased the Omega profile over past 10 years.

Someone classified Omega as "entry level" - I'd not classify Omega as entry level

[Sose]

The first "higer-end" watch that appealed to me was an Omega Bond speedy. I found Subs to be not so innovative specially after all the "homages", "replicas" and fakes out there.

However, instead of buying a PO (which seemed simpler, nicer and better than the SMP) I went and bought myself a GMT. Since I travel a lot more than I dive, I figured I'd splurge and pay more for a watch that, to boot, has better brand more recognizable.

I will still get a PO. Sometime. However, it'll be a pre-owned one.

Cheers to both brands for making fine timepieces that appeal to different (or maybe, very much the same) kind of peeps. Different strokes for different blokes!

[Widows Son]

Originally Posted by pz93c

In the late 60's, Omega was the watch to have.

Will they ever get that position back? I don't know. Rolex is a marketing juggernaut.

You are correct!!!! I love my bumper autos and seamaster devilles from the 50's and 60's. Beautiful, thin, non complcated dress watches on a strap. Rolex never made anything as dressy and timeless.

[A.I.]

Originally Posted by asadtiger

So, being honest, I think Rolex is pure marketing...Omega is way far ahead anyway as a watch maker...and this is honestly just my humble opinion.

100% Sir.

[autofiend]

Originally Posted by pz93c

In the late 60's, Omega was the watch to have.

Will they ever get that position back? I don't know. Rolex is a marketing juggernaut.

Just to add some perspective, Omega is not the same company it was in the late 60's, (now owned by the Swatch Group).

This is not necessarily a bad thing though, since we are seeing some really interesting pieces come out of the brand (8500 movement, new chrono movement, etc), though "in-house" has a slightly different definition since Swatch owns ETA, and ETA helped to develop the exclusive Omega movements.

As a side note, in fit and finish, Omega is definitely on par with Rolex. Owning both, I don't see any perceivable difference in quality and feel.

I think Rolex has a very viable competitor in Omega, and has market share to lose in the future.

[racerx]

I was at a party recently where one guest had on a Rolex No Date Submariner, another an overly thick Breitling and I brought my Planet Ocean 45.5. We passed watches around and my impression of the 14060M was that the bracelet felt like tin foil and it seemed quite small on me. The Breitling made me want call my dentist for a grill. Sorry, those are my impressions. Also had a bit of trouble getting my watch back from these guys, seems they liked it better too. Love all my Omegas and I've been a Rolex owner for 25 years too.

[scl6118]

I think Omega is a nice watch, but is a long ways from the styling, quality, movements, finishing, resale, and recognition of a Rolex!

[toolr]

Originally Posted by Sponon

The day Omega launch an in-house movement they can start thinking of competing with Rolex

That said, Omega is a great entry level with bang for buck

The Omega caliber 8500 is an in-house movement. That being said, the retail price of a new Aqua-terra with the new in-house movement and improved screw pin bracelet is within a few hundred dollars of a Rolex SS Datejust with Oyster bracelet. I would choose the Datejust for sure.

[autofiend]

Originally Posted by scl6118

I think Omega is a nice watch, but is a long ways from the styling, quality, movements, finishing, resale, and recognition of a Rolex!

Hold a PO in one hand and Sub in the other and you may change your mind regarding the quality and finishing.

Don't get me wrong, I love Rolex, but Omega makes a nice watch too.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by autofiend

Hold a PO in one hand and Sub in the other and you may change your mind regarding the quality and finishing.

Don't get me wrong, I love Rolex, but Omega makes a nice watch too.

Hear hear. There are a number of watches still in the Rolex line up that a similar Omega would make feel cheap. I believe that Omega's high quality bracelets forced Rolex to update their own

[Jackxv]

Originally Posted by A.I.

With the movement left to one side Rolex is not equal to an Omega.

Rolex is an old fashioned watch. It is uninteresting to look at and feels no better than any other brand in a blindfold test - but like any well marketed high end brand will always sell in large numbers.

I've just purchased an Omega Liquid Metal and it is everything Rolex should be;-
Modern
Very Stylish
Beautiful
Limited numbers

Young people are buying Omega's in their droves and not only because of value for money - it's just that most young people are very stylish and Rolex's are well - DULL.

Hey it's only my opinion - no flames please.

Well my friend, the brand is not dull , it's classic with a clear view.

Just like Coca-Cola, Luis Vuitton, Burberry : don't change it.

Originally Posted by WJGESQ

Well stated. Rolex is heavily dependant upon marketing, not innovation.

Almost everything seen on a modern watch today was once patented or invented by or with Rolex.
Parachrom hairspring ? Easylink ?
It is a concept which is fine-tuned constantly

Originally Posted by asadtiger

since we are openly discussing it here, what I dont get is the whole fret about Rolex making in-house movements...they just make ONE movement man...a simple one they've been making since ever, and add a date for date model, a GMT for GMT model, a DAY for another model and a chrono for another...thats it!...four models and ALL so similar with the same basic movement...that isn't much to boast about!and lately, rather than classic, I think making the same watch for more than fifty years is more generic literally..I mean they make a truly 'generic' watch when they make any of their current offerings, although they were original at it, but it was wayyy back...and I further find it very funny that the real diversity of Rolex, the cellini line, where they do actually offer different models and movts is completely neglected by all people that praise Rolex so much.

look at Omega...they make every complication, from split second to tourbillon, make hand wound as well as auto, even quartz, and make them in vastly different iterations...and make them beautiful!

So, being honest, I think Rolex is pure marketing...Omega is way far ahead anyway as a watch maker...and this is honestly just my humble opinion.

But that movement 31XX is something like bulletproof, not the nicest to see but engineered very well.

And yes , Omega is a very nice brand with many nice (and good) watches including complications never seen in a Rolex. Even the same base plates as in the Omega's are used in some Breguet watches.

In the end Omega became a brand within the SWATCH group and thus a movement encasing company.

But that is not the strategy chosen for by Rolex, the flagship DJ (6605) introduced in 1956 was made better and better each year untill today equivalent model 116234. An inhouse made luxury watch which will last a lifetime and pronounces luxury and quality.

Jack

[cody p]

every day people have come to view Rolex watches as sort of a 'hallowed' object. while i'm sure Omega can and does make a watch every bit as good as a Rolex, the "iconic status factor" just isn't there. so i don't see the potential for any real 'head to head' competition. Omega would be best served to establish an identity based on it's own merits, just like all the other brands out there that are perceived by those in 'the know' to be horologically superior to Rolex.

[dieseldragon]

I am lusting after a used Seamaster Pro at the moment. I only have one Omega in my collection and I love it, has great fit and finish, stunning look and a fantastic bracelet, but it is in mint condition and I worry about wearing it on a regular basis.
I truly love my Rolex(s), but most often find myself choosing between my Tudor Sub and the Omega. My 14060 Sub was bought in 1994 and was then in my fathers keeping when I bought the 16610 the following year. Now that I have it back, I just like the Tudor and the Omega more.

I think Omega and Rolex will always be competition for each other, but Rolex has raised its image to a point where its the pinnacle of mass produced watches. Whereas Omega has great watches with a nod to the modern, making them fashionable with cutting edge design. Rolex sort of reminds me of brands like Morgan, Bristol and Lotus, they update the product a bit from time to time, but basically its the same, but still a product that people strive for.

Watches are funny things.. they play on our emotions so easily. At the end of the day, both brands produce a quality product and I think the choice comes down to which one YOU like, not which one is perceived as being better.

This thread would make a great starting point for a dissertation from a degree level marketing student.

[Sose]

Originally Posted by dieseldragon

...At the end of the day, both brands produce a quality product and I think the choice comes down to which one YOU like, not which one is perceived as being better.

I agree 100%. Well said.

[WJGESQ]

Originally Posted by scl6118

I think Omega is a nice watch, but is a long ways from the styling, quality, movements, finishing, resale, and recognition of a Rolex!

Styling? You must be joking. Just hold a Seamaster or PO up to any Submariner.

Sorry, I think many, many would respectfully disagree. Same goes for quality and finish in particular.

[Green Arrow]

To answer the OP's questions:

1. Yes.

2. I just did.

[Green Arrow]

Oh, and....

3. Yes. Easily.

[hills]

I have a 1953 Rolex explorer (or pre-explorer as some refer to it) and it still runs perfectly and keeps excellent time.

Today I bought an Omega Seamaster Professional Chronograph, so I'll report back in 57 years and let you know if its still going as well as the Rolex!

[A.I.]

Originally Posted by Jackxv

Well my friend, the brand is not dull , it's classic with a clear view.

Just like Coca-Cola, Luis Vuitton, Burberry : don't change it.

Jack

I'll give you Coca-Cola but Luis Vuitton and Burberry send out only one message "Price and style over substance".

[jmsrolls]

Originally Posted by hills

I have a 1953 Rolex explorer (or pre-explorer as some refer to it) and it still runs perfectly and keeps excellent time.

Today I bought an Omega Seamaster Professional Chronograph, so I'll report back in 57 years and let you know if its still going as well as the Rolex!

Here is my 60-year old Omega and still running strong:



Fr. John†

[jmsrolls]

Originally Posted by A.I.

I'll give you Coca-Cola but Luis Vuitton and Burberry send out only one message "Price and style over substance".

Even Coca-Cola has changed over the years. Cocaine is no longer used in the formula nor is cane sugar. And the packaging has changed many times.

Fr. John†

[Jackxv]

Originally Posted by jmsrolls

Even Coca-Cola has changed over the years. Cocaine is no longer used in the formula nor is cane sugar. And the packaging has changed many times.

Fr. John†

Cocaine was taken out in Coca Cola in 1903 , not a living person on earth who could tell what it tasted like.
The company produces concentrate, which is then sold to licensed Coca-Cola bottlers throughout the world.
The bottlers, who hold territorially exclusive contracts with the company, produce finished product in cans and bottles from the concentrate in combination with filtered water and sweeteners.
Such bottlers include Coca-Cola Enterprises, which is the largest single Coca-Cola bottler in North America and western Europe.

In Mexico they even still produce Cane sugar Coke , around the world there are minimal differences in the taste of Coke and Fanta..

Though the shape of the bottle didn't really change over the last 100 year , the contour bottle (Just like the Datejust)


Sorry to inform you..

[jmsrolls]

Originally Posted by Jackxv

Though the shape of the bottle didn't really change over the last 100 year , the contour bottle (Just like the Datejust)

"Sorry to inform you.."

The History of the Coca Cola Bottle

And for other Coca Cola bottles:

Antique Coke Bottles

Fr. John†

[oldbronco]

vintage Omega movements are a match to any Rolex. vintage Omega styling surpasses Rolex. modern Rolex styling is bland, but the Rolex movements are rock solid. you never hear of a Rolex movement suffering a calibre 2500 sudden death.