Omega now as good as Rolex

[SaddleSC]

I recently purchased two PO8500s (one orange and one black ceramic). I also own a Sub C and DSSD. I have posted the following observations comparing the two...

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=238543

[Mr. RoC]

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

I have to agree.

Also have to add that since Omega is increasing their prices it has affected the pre-owned market, prices are increasing as well.

[dsio]

I think its going to be interesting how Rolex responds to the Cal 8500/9300 series, as far as the Cal 31xx I think that movement series is dead in the water and on the verge of retirement. The Sky-Dweller Cal 9001 shows the lessons they've learned from the Cal 4130/4160 Daytona / YM2 movements, which are a decades ahead of Cal 31xx, and that 9001 in its uncomplicated form will probably be the time-only movement Rolex uses to combat the onslaught of new in-house movements now that ETA is forcing manufacturers to make their own.

Frankly I think the only reason Rolex kept the 31xx so long is that with everyone else using ETA movements they had no reason to spend the money.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by dsio

I think its going to be interesting how Rolex responds to the Cal 8500/9300 series, as far as the Cal 31xx I think that movement series is dead in the water and on the verge of retirement. The Sky-Dweller Cal 9001 shows the lessons they've learned from the Cal 4130/4160 Daytona / YM2 movements, which are a decades ahead of Cal 31xx, and that 9001 in its uncomplicated form will probably be the time-only movement Rolex uses to combat the onslaught of new in-house movements now that ETA is forcing manufacturers to make their own.

Frankly I think the only reason Rolex kept the 31xx so long is that with everyone else using ETA movements they had no reason to spend the money.

interesting thoughts

[Perdu]

I've worn various Rolex for the last 23 years and now I have two Omegas because I think the 8500 Omegas are as good and better for less money. But in WISdom the only thing that really matters is enjoying the watch(es) you have.

[AAMD11]

Ill take an Omega over a Rolex anyday, I already did so haha.

[capote]

You should own both brands, that is the only solution

[htc8p]

Originally Posted by dsio

I think its going to be interesting how Rolex responds to the Cal 8500/9300 series, as far as the Cal 31xx I think that movement series is dead in the water and on the verge of retirement. The Sky-Dweller Cal 9001 shows the lessons they've learned from the Cal 4130/4160 Daytona / YM2 movements, which are a decades ahead of Cal 31xx, and that 9001 in its uncomplicated form will probably be the time-only movement Rolex uses to combat the onslaught of new in-house movements now that ETA is forcing manufacturers to make their own.

Frankly I think the only reason Rolex kept the 31xx so long is that with everyone else using ETA movements they had no reason to spend the money.

i think rolex will have the advantage here. everybody is rushing to make their own movements now that they cannot get it from ETA. Rolex has already established their own workhorse movements. so their investments before are still paying off now. they have no reason to retire their movements or further improve it.

yet another plus for rolex.

[dsio]

Originally Posted by htc8p

i think rolex will have the advantage here. everybody is rushing to make their own movements now that they cannot get it from ETA. Rolex has already established their own workhorse movements. so their investments before are still paying off now. they have no reason to retire their movements or further improve it.

yet another plus for rolex.

Well Omega didn't exactly rush, they took 10 years to develop the Cal 8500, point is, the 3135 does have problems, and does have inferior specifications to nearly every new movement coming onto the market. If they want to be known 10 years as that maker that charges premium prices for 30 year old movements with dodgy winding mechanisms, that's a pretty good way to go about it.

[Passionata]

Pricewise definetly,in quality might be,asthetics well the 8500 is a beatiful movement however i m not confident in the coax,in reputation among WIS yes in general far behind Rolex.

[How]

Good question indeed. The age-old 'Rolex vs Omega' debate. I am currently the proud owner of both brands (not one, but TWO of each), and this is my take on it:

I currently own two Omegas and two Rolexes:

- Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean Chronograph 9300
- Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean 2500 (45.5mm)
- Rolex Submariner 116610LN (Ceramic)
- Rolex Deepsea Sea-Dweller 116660

As you can probably tell, I like dive watches a fair bit LOL.

In my experience, Omegas have very strong product. I'm talking product substance and product quality, as well the engineering in their watches.

Especially the 2500, 8500 and 9300 co-axial movements: these movements are just astonishingly accurate. Try +1 second fast after 3 months (on my PO 2500). And it does so with little or no daily fluctuations whatsoever, regardless of how I wear my watch throughout the day.

Both my Rolexes can never compete with or match this performance. In fact during the day it loses a second, then at night it gains a second, then the next day it can lose two seconds. Very erratic! This is much less reliable than an Omega co-axial movement. How you wear your watch throughout the day and what you do has immediate effect on its accuracy, which is kind of disappointing for such an expensive, high-end watch. I would have expected Rolex to do much better than that, and this is one grudge / concern / frustration that I have with Rolex product.

The Omega Co-Axial movement, based on my experience, is just astonishingly phenomenal; much much better than any Rolex movement I have seen.

Lets take a look at some Omega vs Rolex product examples.

In some cases, granted, we are not comparing apples with apples though. However we can still see where Omega has really stepped it up to provide product that is beyond its competitors.

Take the Planet Ocean Chrono 9300 for example; Omega's nearest competitor to the Deepsea, based on price. This piece is in fact everything that a Deepsea is, and more: it has a chronograph with its own hour + minute subdial, which you could also use as a second timezone, which Rolex doesn't offer in dive watches. Not to mention a sapphire back that enables you to gaze at that gorgeous movement through.

The only thing this can't do vs the DSSD is dive to great depths, down to 3900m. I'm not a diver, so this doesn't concern me; however respectfully and appreciatively on the other other side of the token, the engineering in the DSSD to enable deepsea diving is nothing less than a major engineering marvel also, something that it has over the Omega.

Take another example, this time a direct n 'apples with apples' comparison test:

Next time you get the chance, take a look at a Planet Ocean 8500 (non chronograph that comes in 42mm or 45.5mm), side by side against a 116610LN Submariner. Place them side by side, touch and feel them in your hands. Then you'll see what I mean.

Similar to a blindfolded wine tasting 'blind taste test', let's do a similar test with these two watches.

Imagine if both watches had no brands; neither of them were Omega or Rolex, neither of them had any image, status or history associated with them, both were exactly the same price, and you compared them purely on their merits on product as individual watches.

Both have ceramic bezels, both have date, screw down crown, and steel bracelets. But the Planet Ocean has so much more that the Submariner doesn't:

- Bigger watch (42 or 45.5mm)
- Sapphire back, it can dive deeper down to 600m (300 on the Submariner)
- Has helium escape valve
- Has domed sapphire crystal
- Has anti-reflective coating on both sides of its sapphire crystal
- Its 8500 Co-Axial movement with silicon hairspring and silicon balance wheel runs rings around (pun intended!) the Rolex 3135 with Parachrom hairspring movement.
- The Co-Axial movement can go as long as 6 years between service intervals
- The Planet Ocean has factory designed and supplied rubber straps that you can buy as an option!

The only thing I can think of that the Submariner has over the PO is its magnificent Glidelock clasp and its platinum-blasted indented bezel markers, which I dearly love indeed.

After this test, based on features I bet most of us would agree that the Planet Ocean is the better watch and would choose the Planet Ocean over the Submariner. It simply has so much more to offer over the Submariner.

Now lets see how prices currently compare:

For the price of Rolex Deepsea, you can buy a Planet Ocean 9300, as well as a Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch on top of that, in our country.

So with Omega you get far more watch (bigger watch, more features + greater movement) with just as good, if not greater quality, for much less $$$. So, now we can see Omega's mentality when it comes to jacking up their price to Rolex levels. And many don't see the justification and cringe at every mention of this idea.

And this is why:

IMHO, the only thing that sets Rolex on a higher price band than Omega is its stronger brand.

The general public perception of Rolex is that it is the hotter brand with the perception that its product is far more superior than Omega, when in fact Omega product is just as good, if not better. Many people are just yet to realise this. And when they do... the sky's the limit for Omega.

For example, wearing a Rolex is regarded as a higher 'status symbol' than wearing an Omega. Especially in Asian countries, where, in the world of business, showing off your status and wearing of luxury goods is a necessity, otherwise you get regarded as a second rate citizen, and will lose out on business opportunities. This is shallow, sad, but unfortunately, true. In China, where wealth is growing at blistering speed, the more expensive the item, the more people will buy it. That's insane to say the least!

Throughout the years, Rolex has built a bit of a history and heritage, but yet, so has Omega.

Rolex has transformed itself into an icon through many means, such as James Bond (errrr... haven't both brands been worn by bond now?), through its legendary Submariner, not to mention Datejusts worn by presidents and world leaders, the Daytona 24hr race, Sir Edmund Hilary's climb up Mt Everest with the Explorer, Jacques Cousteau's sea exploration, and not to mention their involvement with deep sea research & development with the Trieste, and now, James Cameron's Deepsea Challenge.

Omega has built its brand through Buzz Aldrin's famous moon landing with the Speedmaster Professional on, the Seamaster made famous by Bond (of course!), and the Ploprof, also brought to legendary status by Mr Cousteau himself.

So, what you pay for in Rolex, great product aside, is the brand. Now I wonder: for what I paid on my SubC and Deepsea purchase how much of it in fact went straight to Tiger Woods? Roger Federer?

So, at the end of the day, it comes down to old notion of "anyone can make a better burger than McDonalds, but look who's got the last laugh?". McDonalds has the last laugh. Their burgers are really, quite ordinary (having said that, I really shouldn't be drawing this as analogy since Rolex watches are anything but ordinary of course!). They are incredibly successful, purely due to their clever marketing and selling techniques that have got them to where they are today, in creating that continual massive public desire and demand for their product. And this, is how Rolex has achieved their brand strength and success.

Omega's product is just as good, if not better, than Rolex. Unfortunately Omega is perceived to be a second-rate brand after Rolex, when in fact their products are not second-rate at all. All Omega is lacks is the strong brand power that Rolex has got. And this is exactly the reason why Omega is jacking up their prices to be on par with Rolex - to force an elevation of public image and perception to say "Hey look, we're expensive and therefore must be hot and desirable, too!".

Will Omega eventually attain the image, status, and brand power of Rolex? Who knows? I sincerely wish them all the luck and success in the world. Their product certainly deserves this level of admiration, recognition, respect and success.

But one thing's for sure: at the moment it certainly is better for all of us, as we are not paying for their brand as much as we are with Rolex. So lets enjoy it while we can.

[bamseladin]

Omega has always been, better then Rolex, in everything - even if you dont believe in god, dont mess whith his messanger, jesus christ. Some one have to pay, for this weird, development! Some one has to carry the cross, up the mountain, all the way up to the top!

This Most END NOW!

[somatic]

I like some omegas over some rolex, and vice versa. I don't feel that any one brand is better in every way

[mfserge]

How....you are spot on with EVERYTHING you have said. As an owner of multiple planet oceans and multiple Rolex I agree with all of your comments. The only advantage of the sub is the superior clasp. The lines, the flow, the finish, and the movement on the new PO are exceptional. Some people say that the movement isn't beautiful enough to have a display back and thats just ridiclioussssss.

Great review.

[Mr. RoC]

I love both my SMP 1120cal and my Explorer 3132cal. But I have to say that I'm a tad bit disappointed with the performance of the 3132cal. Everyone can say all they want that it's "normal" for our Rolex watches to gain +10 to +20 sec after swinging one's arms from what ever activity they just did. My Explorer will gain +7sec after a work out at the gym but in my 14 years of owning my SMP 1120cal that I never once in it's life time experienced this. I've worn that SMP through everything from downhill mountain biking to diving to help build a garden shed which involved swinging a hammer to throwing out the trash that my 1120cal never ever gain +10 to +20 sec let alone +1 sec because of my activities.

At the end of the day I have a Omega and a Rolex and I'm happy with that. It has already been decided that IF I should decide on another Omega that it would be a current AT or if I can find one, a RailMaster.

[thewatchguy93]

Can't compare the two brands, Omega are FANTASTIC in many ways, but Rolex just do everything soooo well!


Hard one....


Its like trying to compare a Rolls Royce Phantom, to a Ferrari.. Both amazing, but you just can't compare them.. IMO

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by Dingoo93

Can't compare the two brands, Omega are FANTASTIC in many ways, but Rolex just do everything soooo well!


Hard one....


Its like trying to compare a Rolls Royce Phantom, to a Ferrari.. Both amazing, but you just can't compare them.. IMO

I have to agree with that, I own both and love both for what they are. I've never felt the need to compare anything.

[bayerische]

Both awesome watches.

Omega might be more value for money, but with fast increases the gap is closing.

[How]

Originally Posted by Dingoo93

Can't compare the two brands, Omega are FANTASTIC in many ways, but Rolex just do everything soooo well!


Hard one....


Its like trying to compare a Rolls Royce Phantom, to a Ferrari.. Both amazing, but you just can't compare them.. IMO

Now you have me comparing watches with cars LOL.... (slightly getting off topic I know :P), but in which case, I would put as follows:

Rolex = BMW (settled, volume-selling luxury car with settled iconic such as the legendary 3 Series, 5 Series and 7 Series)

Omega = Audi (fast growing luxury car brand with product that appeals more to the younger generation, but brand is yet to reach the BMW and Mercedes level of prestigeness)

Patek Phillipe = Rolls Royce (ultra-high end, class for the older generation)

Hublot = Ferrari (high-end sports car)

[yessir69]

Originally Posted by How

Now you have me comparing watches with cars LOL.... (slightly getting off topic I know :P), but in which case, I would put as follows:

Rolex = BMW (settled, volume-selling luxury car with settled iconic such as the legendary 3 Series, 5 Series and 7 Series)

Omega = Audi (fast growing luxury car brand with product that appeals more to the younger generation, but brand is yet to reach the BMW and Mercedes level of prestigeness)

Patek Phillipe = Rolls Royce (ultra-high end, class for the older generation)

Hublot = Ferrari (high-end sports car)

I'd say the Ferrari would be more of a Richard Mille?!?

BTW - really thoughtful analysis on your earlier post.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by How

Now you have me comparing watches with cars LOL.... (slightly getting off topic I know :P), but in which case, I would put as follows:

Rolex = BMW (settled, volume-selling luxury car with settled iconic such as the legendary 3 Series, 5 Series and 7 Series)

Omega = Audi (fast growing luxury car brand with product that appeals more to the younger generation, but brand is yet to reach the BMW and Mercedes level of prestigeness)

Patek Phillipe = Rolls Royce (ultra-high end, class for the older generation)

Hublot = Ferrari (high-end sports car)

imho, rolex (swiss watch) is not like a finicky high performance german car ... BMW are very needy for attention, my rolex is not ever ... part of the business model of BMW is to extract boat loads of cash from their customers each time you bring your car in for service and the service is frequent... putting an association between these 2 things is just terrible.

in 20 years my sub has seen the service center twice, once because of a malfunction (sadly it took 3 visits to fix it... thats another story) and the other to bring her back to spec.

now excuse me while i try to erase this thought from my head

[rkim11]

Originally Posted by oceandweller

Desmond, very well-spoken and by the way generally, since when a Rolex movement is better than an Omega's. The only reason Rolex is so popular is because their marketing-strategy is second to none.

I am not against Rolex in any way, since I have a Sea-Dweller model reference 1665 with Rail Dial and this watch is now on my son's wrist. I wear the Omega Seamaster 120m of the early 70's. Why? Because the time-keeping is close to absolute: + - 2 secs per day, and I cannot see the word 'Chronometer' at all, on its dial.

Who timed the many Olympic Games since ages ago, and who has flown to the Moon? We know, who. When the British divers wanted a watch, Omega sent their watches directly from the production-line (300m), while Rolex had to modify the hands of their model reference 5514 (stand to be corrected), before delivering their Submariners.

Though we have to admit, both Rolex and Omega make great watches that will last for generations to come, provided they are well-maintained.

I have had a 2531.80 so I know what a great watch Omega is. But I agree that there are no parameters that can be set to compare the two and decide which is definitively better. And I'm not sure comparing where the two brands have been to is a battle Omega would win over Rolex.

[emagni]

Not much to think about....picture says it all.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by bamseladin

Omega has always been, better then Rolex, in everything - even if you dont believe in god, dont mess whith his messanger, jesus christ. Some one have to pay, for this weird, development! Some one has to carry the cross, up the mountain, all the way up to the top!

This Most END NOW!

I have Rolex watches.

I have Omega watches.

I like both manufacturers but across the range of models offered over the years Rolex is superior.

You, John, have lost it.

'Jesus Christ' and 'God' have capitals.
You are going to hell now in an Omega box.....


Here are some Omegas I like.

[Wristmaster]

Rolex has strongrer brand.. Its like comparing mc donalds and burger king i guess haha..

[subtona]

rolex strength is in its time honored design, a submariner was designed with very specific purpose, it ws tweaked a bit in its early days & has since remained visually unchanged.
the hands /dial/bezel/case/ bracelet etc.... are the same as they ever were.
this imho is what makes the brand more desirable.

omega is confused, many of their key models change as often as some change their underwear, if you have any doubt about this, look at the speedy pro, arguably the most loved model omega has ever, will ever produce..... why because it went to the moon?
NO, becuse they havent altered it.

nuff said.

[Tom R]

Originally Posted by subtona

rolex strength is in its time honored design, a submariner was designed with very specific purpose, it ws tweaked a bit in its early days & has since remained visually unchanged.
the hands /dial/bezel/case/ bracelet etc.... are the same as they ever were.
this imho is what makes the brand more desirable.

omega is confused, many of their key models change as often as some change their underwear, if you have any doubt about this, look at the speedy pro, arguably the most loved model omega has ever, will ever produce..... why because it went to the moon?
NO, becuse they havent altered it.

nuff said.

Great point and one I hadn't really thought about.


i guess that's what I love about my car as well. Its design is pretty much unchanged since my 1969 model to the current day.

Timeless is good.

[mondodec]

I'm a tad confused about your statement that Omega is a bit confused and I think its a bit of a myth that Omega changes designs with immoderate haste.

The Constellation: design is still highly derivative of the 1982 Manhattan; Seamaster Professional: pretty much the same case design as in 1990 with a few dial and bezel tweaks; Ploprof: 1970s design re-released; Planet Ocean: New collection but the design is essentially that of the Seamaster 300 models released in 1957; DeVIlle, apart from hour vision, cases all based on 1940s and 1950s Omega machine age designs; Speedmaster Professional: virtually unchanged since 1963

Omega for the better parts of its 165 year history has always had a number of collections, which, from time to time, receive minor and evolutionary upgrades. Show me something dramatically different or some abrupt change in Omega design language over the last two decades (apart from an orange bezel) and I will eat my hat. Two sub-dials instead of three in chronographs is not earth shattering, dial variations and changes (which all watch companies do, including Rolex) are not breathtakingly radical, and even the introduction of two new calibres over the last decade has not been accompanied by a revolution in case or dial design.

"Time honoured" in the watch world equals conservative, some would say reactionary, and both Rolex and Omega are considered very conservative in their designs. Go to Baselworld any year and the buzz you pick up about the designs of both is "safe", "unadventurous", "traditional", "restrained" "very "Audi sedan like".

Both, in their own way ,focus on horological invention and innovation rather than fashion design, which, of course, is a very commercially sensible thing to do by mass production manufactures at the quality and veblen end of the industry.

Originally Posted by subtona

rolex strength is in its time honored design, a submariner was designed with very specific purpose, it ws tweaked a bit in its early days & has since remained visually unchanged.
the hands /dial/bezel/case/ bracelet etc.... are the same as they ever were.
this imho is what makes the brand more desirable.

omega is confused, many of their key models change as often as some change their underwear, if you have any doubt about this, look at the speedy pro, arguably the most loved model omega has ever, will ever produce..... why because it went to the moon?
NO, becuse they havent altered it.

nuff said.

[Cabaiguan]

The new 8500 PO is superior to the Sub in many ways. If marketing and branding were taken out of the equation, the PO would have the Sub for breakfast. Just sayin'...

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Tom R

Great point and one I hadn't really thought about.


i guess that's what I love about my car as well. Its design is pretty much unchanged since my 1969 model to the current day.

Timeless is good.

sounds like a porsche 911 my favorite car for that very reason.

Originally Posted by mondodec

I'm a tad confused about your statement that Omega is a bit confused and I think its a bit of a myth that Omega changes designs with immoderate haste.

The Constellation: design is still highly derivative of the 1982 Manhattan; Seamaster Professional: pretty much the same case design as in 1990 with a few dial and bezel tweaks; Ploprof: 1970s design re-released; Planet Ocean: New collection but the design is essentially that of the Seamaster 300 models released in 1957; DeVIlle, apart from hour vision, cases all based on 1940s and 1950s Omega machine age designs; Speedmaster Professional: virtually unchanged since 1963

Omega for the better parts of its 165 year history has always had a number of collections, which, from time to time, receive minor and evolutionary upgrades. Show me something dramatically different or some abrupt change in Omega design language over the last two decades (apart from an orange bezel) and I will eat my hat. Two sub-dials instead of three in chronographs is not earth shattering, dial variations and changes (which all watch companies do, including Rolex) are not breathtakingly radical, and even the introduction of two new calibres over the last decade has not been accompanied by a revolution in case or dial design.

"Time honoured" in the watch world equals conservative, some would say reactionary, and both Rolex and Omega are considered very conservative in their designs. Go to Baselworld any year and the buzz you pick up about the designs of both is "safe", "unadventurous", "traditional", "restrained" "very "Audi sedan like".

Both, in their own way ,focus on horological invention and innovation rather than fashion design, which, of course, is a very commercially sensible thing to do by mass production manufactures at the quality and veblen end of the industry.

Desmond, you raise good points, i don't doubt the history is there for omega, but lets take just the speedmaster line for example
(speedy pro aside as we both completely agree on that),
when you look at all the 2011 catalog of models of speedmaster for example, there is a version with no date, a date at the 6 oclock position, a date at the 3 oclock position and finally a date between the 4 and 5 oclock position.

(compare this to the rolex daytona, even when they moved away from the zenith movement and started producing their own, they realized the importance of keeping the design the same.)

if omega cant decide on what they believe is the best way to put together a watch, it leaves at least this customer feeling as though they are not confident in their designs, they have also had several movement options and 2 different hand options.

optional choices can be a great thing but the process waters down the perceived value, which is indicated by the resale on these variant models.
again looking at the speedy pro which maintains a high resale, why, because it is the same as it ever was, the consumer doesn't feel like their getting last years model.

just my opinion, my first great watch was an omega, i am a fan but if we are talking timeless design, i would have to give it to rolex and porshce 911