The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Old 12 August 2012, 12:35 PM   #61
AlTinkster92
"TRF" Member
 
AlTinkster92's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 498
Personally, I would take Omega quality anyday over Rolex and I own 2 of each. Rolex commands more money but I still love the Omegas...Omegas are built like a tank!
AlTinkster92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 August 2012, 10:49 PM   #62
ticktock 2
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: uk
Watch: omega PO LM LE
Posts: 77
Quality wise I would say the modern Omegas are ahead of Rolex....but Rolex are masters of marketing which keeps them in the game. I went to look at a new Datejust 11 smooth bezel with a view to buy ( I still might )...problem is it does not compare to my PO LM LE quality wise....what to do.....
ticktock 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 August 2012, 03:31 AM   #63
zeroshiki
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: paul
Location: surabaya
Posts: 321
I just got a 8500 PO 45mm and it's fantastic!! build quality wise, it's really value for money at the price. Comparing to ie: panerai at the same price range, the PO absolutely is a better watch.

Owning the submariner ceramic, i could compare the two and i'd say even though the omega has more bang for the buck factor, the submariner is still the better watch. Here are some observation i made over the week i have the PO:

bezel construction: submariner wins hands down. The ceramic bezel insert on the sub does not only look better, it is also better intergrated and engineered to the case than the PO. Its buttery smooth to turn the bezel on the sub because of the ball bearing vs traditional rachet mechanism on the PO. Also, the ceramic itself on the sub feels more solid than on the PO. Tapping my fingernail on the bezel comparing the two, the PO feels and sounded hollow on some side of the ceramic while solid on others, while the sub is solid uniformly in all sides of the bezel.
Another concern is the way the ceramic insert is attached to the bezel, on the sub, the insert isnt glued to the bezel, its pressed into it and held by the outermost bezel ring. While on the PO, i think it is glued to the bezel, and a side protrude higher than the other, making the crystal seems protrude higher one side than the other. At first i thought it was an issue with crystal pressing to the case, but later concluded it was the bezel insert uneveness that caused it.

The PO dial could have been on par with submariner, if omega has paid more attention to QC, the 12 o'clock applied lume marker on mine is skewed one side, not that noticeable since i was only able to find that out after owning the watch for a couple days. It caused the marker-12-omega logo out of alignment. Again, this is a small understandable factory defect, but shouldnt passed the QC in the first place.

Good thing is the PO comes with 4 years warranty, i have no doubt omega will stand behind their product and fix those flaws, i just cant be bothered to send it in yet.

Back to the comparison, the crystal of the PO is just amazing!! Nothing short of spectacular! Indices also reflect light beautifully, makes the whole watch shines and special in a way the sub cant. Sub blings diferently and its beautiful, the PO is on par on its own way to bling.

The design feels more modern on the PO with the sleek lines of the case sompared to the sub, a different flavor if i may say. The submariner is a timeless classic and beautiful in its own way, it is after all, the iconic diver watch which retained a lot more of its classic design from the first sub date 40 years ago. and the PO is a modern interpretation of the 50's omega dive watch. Also beautiful in its modern way.

The movement, 8500 movement is sure pretty to look at, mine runs -8 seconds in total course of 5 days timing it. Not too bad considering it ran -0 on the 2nd or 3rd day. The trusty sub i have, runs -3 secs total over the week i worn it prior to the PO. I would have preferred running fast movements but such a result over a week or so testing isnt something to be concerned about.

Having blessed to own both watches, i can say both submariner and PO could co-exist in harmony instead of having to debate which one is better. Both represents great milestones in dive watch world. Both has their own merits and weaknesses, and ultimately, one cannot go wrong with either choice.
zeroshiki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 August 2012, 07:26 AM   #64
Bernie.H.
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: England
Posts: 514
'How' your post No 41 was an excellent. Very knowledgable ! It must have taken some time to put together. Very interesting thank you.
Bernie.H. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 August 2012, 11:55 AM   #65
Power Play
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 470
Oh yeah!

Quote:
Originally Posted by subtona View Post
sounds like a porsche 911 my favorite car for that very reason.



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


Totally with you about the 911!!!

Oh yeah, with you on the watches, too.

Power Play is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 August 2012, 12:11 PM   #66
roadcarver
"TRF" Member
 
roadcarver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Real Name: Vernon
Location: C-a-n-a-d-a
Watch: 16600
Posts: 5,641
There will always be fan boys and there will be people who admire watches, period.
__________________
I'm just a cook...
roadcarver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 August 2012, 01:17 PM   #67
Mystro
2024 Pledge Member
 
Mystro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: The Mystro ;)
Location: Central Pa.
Posts: 14,623
I own both Rolex Sub and Omega Planet Ocean. I find them equals. I do find the PO more fresh looking in its larger 45mm size but sill remaining as timeless as the Submariner. I find the smugness of some Rolex owners insecurity toward other brands rather pathetic. If your confident you bought the right watch for your needs, you dont need to justify or defend your purchase to anyone. Buy what you like. It's o.k to like more than one brand. In fact, its rather refreshing and enlightening. The, this brand vs that brand is better saved for teenagers comparing game systems.

Funny, I think they both work equally well with a 911..

Mystro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 August 2012, 08:53 PM   #68
joe100
2024 Pledge Member
 
joe100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Real Name: Joe
Location: New Mexico
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 12,752
Omega 2012 and Rolex 2012 are on par.

Omega 1983 and Rolex 1983 are an entirely different matter.
__________________
It's Espresso, not Expresso. Coffee is not a train in Italy.
-TRF Member 6982-
joe100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 August 2012, 09:22 PM   #69
Dweller of the Sea
"TRF" Member
 
Dweller of the Sea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: EU
Watch: ing TRF
Posts: 576
I laughed at your post.

Why shouldn´t Omega be the same quality as Rolex?
Rolex is not made by the gods, offcourse other brand can be as good.

I´m a watchmaker, and when I look at the quality Omega has today, it is equally with Rolex. I even find their new calibers 8500/9300 more technical modern.

Rolex has been resting for two decades, and other brands have been innovative. Its not just Omega, just look at the in-house from IWC and Breitling.
Rolex uses old technology in many design. They still don´t have ballbearings in their automatics (except Daytona). The 31xx is 20 years old, with only small improvements.
They still use screw-down pushers, Omega has for 15 years made watches where you can use the pushers underwater at the depthrating.

I like Rolex, but I don´t put them on a piedestal (nor any other brands)
Dweller of the Sea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15 August 2012, 08:57 PM   #70
penfold
"TRF" Member
 
penfold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 107
For me here in the UK, the biggest difference between Omega and Rolex is their after sales service. The service I've always received from Rolex has been superb. In contrast, dealing with Swatch UK has been an absolute nightmare to the point where even under warranty I'd prefer to use an independent watchmaker.

This is the area where Omega really needs to improve if they are to compete with Rolex.
penfold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15 August 2012, 09:07 PM   #71
Puffy
"TRF" Member
 
Puffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 12,485
I own both brands and they're great quality
Rolex just has a bigger marketing budget

Sent from my GT-I9100
__________________
Fine Quality is Long Remembered After the Pain of Spending Money is Forgotten
Puffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15 August 2012, 09:08 PM   #72
dsio
"TRF" Member
 
dsio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Ashley
Location: Brisbane
Watch: Rolex Sub 1680 '79
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe100 View Post
Omega 2012 and Rolex 2012 are on par.

Omega 1983 and Rolex 1983 are an entirely different matter.
Much like Ozzy Osborne, the mid 1970s through to late 1990s is a period best forgotten
__________________
-- Omega Seamaster Grand-Lux Stepped Pie-Pan 14K Gold OJ2627 '53 --
-- Omega Cal 320 Chronograph 18K Gold OT2872 '58 --
-- Omega Cal 321 Speedmaster Pro 145.012 '67 --
-- Rolex Submariner 1680 "Ghost" '79 --
-- Rolex SS Daytona 116520 '04 --
dsio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 August 2012, 12:30 AM   #73
jstroh
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Real Name: Joe
Location: Clear Brook, VA
Watch: Rolex DSSD
Posts: 34
I own the PO XL 8500 and the DSSD. Both are superb in their own ways.

The PO has a more modern look that is captivating, especially with the crystal that allows the face to shine. The workmanship is flawless and the movement keeps excellent time. What's not to like?

As for the Rolex, I still feel the face is cluttered [too much writing] and the Mercedes hands outdated. But, surprisingly, that timeless quality attracts me. As soon as I saw the case and dial in person, I was hooked.

You can pick apart these watches in an attempt to prove that one is better than the other. Some of the assessments made in this thread, especially those in favor of the Omegas, are hard to rebut. In the end, though, the watch either moves you, which will often translate into a perception of superiority, or it doesn't.

Both of these watches move me, but the Rolex more than the Omega, which is not surprising considering that one can pick up two POs for the price of a single DSSD. The DSSD, though, made me realize why Rolex is so popular, not just among those whose choice is dictated in large degree by marketing, but among those who know a thing or two about watches. They are exceptional timepieces, IMO.

A note on marketing: It works only so far. Then the goods must be delivered. McDonald's doesn't just make the burgers it wants to make and then convince people that those burgers are better than the competition's. McDonald's takes into account the opinions of its customers, which is easy to do and then apply. The McDonald's hamburger is time-tested. Rolex also delivers: timeless watches of a high quality. Its ranking among the public is skewed by its marketing, but marketing alone is not capable of pulling this off.
jstroh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 August 2012, 07:58 AM   #74
speedy cosmograph
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 66
I disagree with the salesman: My Omegas are superior to my Rolex watches. The Speedmasters...even those from 1959...are outstanding in timekeeping and reliability. The Rolex watches...Sub and Daytona...need 700 plus in service every 5 years or they will likely stop running. If I could only keep one watch in a watch-pocalypse, I'd take a Speedmaster Pro/pre pro...unless my goal was to impress people who know only that Rolex is often linked with affluence.
speedy cosmograph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 August 2012, 08:02 AM   #75
speedy cosmograph
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 66
And as for marketing and McDonalds. Cmon, Rolex has been making its living off of the PERCEPTION that the brand is the brand of wealth for decades now. The quality simply isn't in line with the prices. And don't get me started on the Rolex refusal to allow parts in the secondary market to make service reasonable. Viva Omega...and many others who make great watches without the notice Rolex gets. Pretense, plain and simple.
speedy cosmograph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 August 2012, 10:30 PM   #76
jstroh
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Real Name: Joe
Location: Clear Brook, VA
Watch: Rolex DSSD
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy cosmograph View Post
And as for marketing and McDonalds. Cmon, Rolex has been making its living off of the PERCEPTION that the brand is the brand of wealth for decades now. The quality simply isn't in line with the prices. And don't get me started on the Rolex refusal to allow parts in the secondary market to make service reasonable. Viva Omega...and many others who make great watches without the notice Rolex gets. Pretense, plain and simple.
I was careful in stating that the public's perception of Rolex is based to a large degree on marketing, so I'm with you generally on that. But that doesn't explain why so many people who frequent this and other forums own these timepieces. In fact, I was once one of those who swore that he would never own a Rolex because of the hype etc. I didn't buy one after seeing a commercial or a magazine ad. I bought the DSSD because it was what I wanted after going through dozens of lesser watches. Perhaps I was duped.

As for price, all luxury watches are expensive and way out of line with what you actually get. That includes Omega, whose prices are inching up and, I would venture to guess, will soon be quite comparable to those charged by Rolex, if it's not already there. Omega's goal is certainly to sell more watches at higher and higher prices. And, as part of that strategy, Omega is lifting many of the pages out of the Rolex playbook. That includes saturation commercials during certain sporting events [the recent PGA championship] and its placement in the James Bond films. Patek Philippe's ads try to equate that brand with the highest quality on the planet. We can say it has more of a leg to stand on, but how does one justify these sky-high prices in any way that reflects the actual product. I cannot do it. And I cannot do it with Rolex. And I cannot do it with Omega.
jstroh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 August 2012, 11:01 PM   #77
Preacher
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Middle England
Watch: Rolex of course
Posts: 526
Price in the UK for a Submariner Date is Ł5700 while the price for a PO 8500 Ti is Ł5460!! For only Ł240 more, I'll take the Sub please (the PO is too big for me anyway).
Preacher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16 August 2012, 11:14 PM   #78
crs12
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: London
Watch: Explorer I
Posts: 167
Would you compare the Sub to the Planet Ocean though?

I would think the SMP is closer to the Sub and the retail for that is Ł2.5/Ł2.7k

Was told that the new Co Axial movement needs service about every 8 years compared to Rolex which would need a service every 4 years.

Rolex are good watches but the price you are paying is because that's what Rolex can sell them at and not necessarily because of the quality.

Omega are maybe cheaper to gain customers who want something better than a cheap watch but dont want to pay Rolex prices.

Even at a cheaper price they still make a very good profit on each item.
crs12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 August 2012, 02:35 AM   #79
mondodec
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Real Name: Desmond
Location: Australia
Watch: Vintage Connies
Posts: 169
This has been an fascinating discussion, an amalgam of commentary on brand perception and peppered with some some interesting brand comparisons.

Every knowledgeable collector will have an opinion of both brands, but of course opinions are simply expressions of personal preference unless they bring in some pretty decent reasoned argument. Opinions also represent an autobiography of the opionist, and tell us much about the person expressing them. For example, we all call blind and incorrigible devotees of a particular brand fanboys, because they appear to be just like the irrational rooters of a football team who somehow hallucinate that a particular team is 'their' team, when a cold and hard exploration of the fact reveals that the team is anything but 'theirs'. Such are the tricks that we play on ourselves.

The thing I really admire about the Rolex marketing campaigns of the eighties until the noughties is that there was a concerted effort on two fronts. Rolex, with much aforethought, positioned the brand as a veblen good (see here) and also what in economics is called a "conspicuous good", not unlike the general understanding of conspicuous consumption.

So, a pretty robust movement and case, the product of mass production, branded under the name Rolex was positioned firstly on price, the veblen principle (you have to have a pretty good disposable income to have one of these because they're really expensive and therefore somewhat hard to attain) and, secondly, on the conspicuousness principle (people who wear Rolexes are the patricians and successes of society, and, thus, if you wear one you will 'appear' to be a patrician or a success, even if you're not.)

The consistent message of Rolex advertising over those two crucial post Swiss crisis decades was essentially that if you can cast around for enough cash to buy one of our beauties then everyone else, including you, will think you're a cut above the rest. Superb propaganda that built the brand from one of eating Omega's dust in the sixties to the pre-eminent mass production brand...you gotta hand it to them.

Omega is also a Veblen brand and always has been, at least from the post war Swiss push. Again, Omega, increasingly, in it's campaigns is mirroring the Veblen and Conspicuous Goods strategies, hence price increases and the number of Ambassadors it chooses to reflect the success message.

Horologically, as I asserted before, IMO both of these mass production houses produce comparable product in terms of quality, reliability, accuracy, precision and durability, but intrinsically they're not worth the money we pay for them. That's the veblen principle in action, a very delicate balancing act that enhances the bank balances of the Eurotrash beneficiaries of the Wilsdorf foundation and the shareholders of Swatch.

Let's face it, we're hooked, we love these brands, and make many emotional decisions in acquiring examples of various collections. But, ultimately, our perceptions of either brand have been influenced by the power of the viral messages created by the brand owners.

Cheers

desmond
mondodec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 August 2012, 05:47 AM   #80
capote
"TRF" Member
 
capote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Real Name: Daniel
Location: Sweden
Watch: 16570
Posts: 7,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondodec View Post
This has been an fascinating discussion, an amalgam of commentary on brand perception and peppered with some some interesting brand comparisons.

Every knowledgeable collector will have an opinion of both brands, but of course opinions are simply expressions of personal preference unless they bring in some pretty decent reasoned argument. Opinions also represent an autobiography of the opionist, and tell us much about the person expressing them. For example, we all call blind and incorrigible devotees of a particular brand fanboys, because they appear to be just like the irrational rooters of a football team who somehow hallucinate that a particular team is 'their' team, when a cold and hard exploration of the fact reveals that the team is anything but 'theirs'. Such are the tricks that we play on ourselves.

The thing I really admire about the Rolex marketing campaigns of the eighties until the noughties is that there was a concerted effort on two fronts. Rolex, with much aforethought, positioned the brand as a veblen good (see here) and also what in economics is called a "conspicuous good", not unlike the general understanding of conspicuous consumption.

So, a pretty robust movement and case, the product of mass production, branded under the name Rolex was positioned firstly on price, the veblen principle (you have to have a pretty good disposable income to have one of these because they're really expensive and therefore somewhat hard to attain) and, secondly, on the conspicuousness principle (people who wear Rolexes are the patricians and successes of society, and, thus, if you wear one you will 'appear' to be a patrician or a success, even if you're not.)

The consistent message of Rolex advertising over those two crucial post Swiss crisis decades was essentially that if you can cast around for enough cash to buy one of our beauties then everyone else, including you, will think you're a cut above the rest. Superb propaganda that built the brand from one of eating Omega's dust in the sixties to the pre-eminent mass production brand...you gotta hand it to them.

Omega is also a Veblen brand and always has been, at least from the post war Swiss push. Again, Omega, increasingly, in it's campaigns is mirroring the Veblen and Conspicuous Goods strategies, hence price increases and the number of Ambassadors it chooses to reflect the success message.

Horologically, as I asserted before, IMO both of these mass production houses produce comparable product in terms of quality, reliability, accuracy, precision and durability, but intrinsically they're not worth the money we pay for them. That's the veblen principle in action, a very delicate balancing act that enhances the bank balances of the Eurotrash beneficiaries of the Wilsdorf foundation and the shareholders of Swatch.

Let's face it, we're hooked, we love these brands, and make many emotional decisions in acquiring examples of various collections. But, ultimately, our perceptions of either brand have been influenced by the power of the viral messages created by the brand owners.

Cheers

desmond
You make some good points.

One thing I have noticed around TRF is this: Most people here agrees that Rolex spends loads of money on marketing, but when you see some of the results people can't see through it. One example: Omega and James Bond, there are always snyde remakes that the character is sponsored, its not a "real" Bond watch etc. In Mission Impossible 4, three out of the four main characters wear watches from Rolex S.A, but that it would be the same old product placement is out of the question for many it seems. It makes sense that a character wears a Rolex, anything else is suspicious, and bought by top dollar.

Where Omega has a brute approach to marketing in these cases, come on, Bond had to pronounce "Omega" in Casino Royale - and then a follow up with tie-in limited edition watches and Craig Daniel in their own marketing material, Rolex is more subtle. In Live and Let Die a Submariner is integrated in the story (they got a thanks in the endtitles, I wonder why?) a more modern clever marketing approach seems to be evolving from the masters at HQ in Schwitzerland. These examples are only hearsay at this point since I have yet to see either film, but in "Unknown" and "Bourne Legacy" Rolex watches are from what I've heard, used as collateral. Isn't that interesting? Of course this could just happen to be the screen-writers idea, but what better marketing could you ask for? You can't really print that Rolex have great re-sale value and is a liquid asset in an ad now, could you?

Oh well, just some random thoughts on marketing. I will add that I really like both brands.
capote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17 August 2012, 07:45 AM   #81
steveclocks
"TRF" Member
 
steveclocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Real Name: Geert
Location: Belgium
Watch: rolex/JLC/panerai
Posts: 5,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by emagni View Post
Not much to think about....picture says it all.



that's handsome !
steveclocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 August 2012, 01:41 AM   #82
Billythekid
"TRF" Member
 
Billythekid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: India
Posts: 324
Rolex are the leaders in brand image as most people on earth think that rolex is the best watch in the world which explains their pawn shop popularity and whats with blank rolex casebacks the most useless piece of metal ever put to use anywhere and the overboard prices in which you can buy more better watches of much cooler brands,Omega for me will always be better than rolex as omegas are well built, more accurate ,much more value for money and more haute horologie than rolex.


Sent from my 
Billythekid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 August 2012, 03:25 AM   #83
witch watch
"TRF" Member
 
witch watch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Scotland
Watch: Milgauss GV
Posts: 1,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by ticktock 2 View Post
Quality wise I would say the modern Omegas are ahead of Rolex.
I would agree with this movement wise and i think anyone in right in the head could see this but Omega still make to many quartz pieces and don't have as many stone cold classics in the current line up. Comparing model versus model in monetary terms though there are crystal clear pluses on Omega's end. It all comes down to paying your money and taking your choice.
witch watch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 August 2012, 07:10 AM   #84
The GMT Master
"TRF" Member
 
The GMT Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Posts: 8,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by witch watch View Post
I would agree with this movement wise and i think anyone in right in the head could see this but Omega still make to many quartz pieces and don't have as many stone cold classics in the current line up. Comparing model versus model in monetary terms though there are crystal clear pluses on Omega's end. It all comes down to paying your money and taking your choice.
I think Omega realise that they have too many quartz models, and have been scaling back in recent years. In the men's range now, only the Aqua Terra and the Constellation can be had in quartz - all men's quartz De Villes have been dropped, as has the quartz SMP. I think they'll continue with quartz in ladies models, more to keep the size down more than anything else. A lot of ladies still like a petite watch, and find an automatic too chunky (a common complaint with Rolex), and it doesn't seem to have done other brands like Patek Philippe any harm
The GMT Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 August 2012, 08:53 AM   #85
Perdu
"TRF" Member
 
Perdu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: Gary
Location: GMT-6
Watch: GMT
Posts: 3,350
Product quality wise the new Omegas are as good as Rolex and you could easily argue better with the new movements, but when it comes to service Omega are not there.
__________________
Omega Seamaster 300M GMT Noire
Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra 8500

Benson 1937 Sterling Silver Hunter
Perdu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 August 2012, 09:01 AM   #86
Mickey®
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Mickey®
Location: Atlanta, GA
Watch: Swiss Made
Posts: 5,801
Probably so...
But I liked Omega when they were a robust cheaper alternative to Rolex.
My first 2500 PO cost me $1700.00 Never should have flipped that one!!!
Also the Moon watch for around 2k used, 3k new PERFECTION!
Mickey® is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 August 2012, 07:55 PM   #87
witch watch
"TRF" Member
 
witch watch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Scotland
Watch: Milgauss GV
Posts: 1,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by The GMT Master View Post
I think Omega realise that they have too many quartz models, and have been scaling back in recent years. In the men's range now, only the Aqua Terra and the Constellation can be had in quartz - all men's quartz De Villes have been dropped, as has the quartz SMP. I think they'll continue with quartz in ladies models, more to keep the size down more than anything else. A lot of ladies still like a petite watch, and find an automatic too chunky (a common complaint with Rolex), and it doesn't seem to have done other brands like Patek Philippe any harm
Chris i never noticed/knew that the quartz SMP had been dropped but i do agree that is the correct move to make for Omega. As for womans quartz pieces that does not surprise me at all, most woman will take a shiny diamond effort over a 'plain' mech piece, although PP have said they have noticed that more woman are asking and looking for auto's though.

Oh and was in our new Omega boutique on saturday(was in asking about the SMP Racing) and got a wee look and wear of this:
http://www.omegawatches.com/gents/sp...31163445101001
& by god is it a lovely watch, better than ANY Daytona on a strap in my humble
witch watch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 August 2012, 03:51 PM   #88
bhall41
"TRF" Member
 
bhall41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Real Name: Ben
Location: Melbourne
Watch: 16750
Posts: 115
Great post Desmond. I agree with everything you said.
bhall41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 August 2012, 12:29 AM   #89
00Seven
"TRF" Member
 
00Seven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Real Name: Nick
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Watch: Omega
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhall41 View Post
Great post Desmond. I agree with everything you said.
Bingo - great post Desmond.
00Seven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 August 2012, 06:18 AM   #90
ticktock 2
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: uk
Watch: omega PO LM LE
Posts: 77
Again ...nicely put Desmond. You certainly covered all bases there. Blame it on those Mad Men ......!
ticktock 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.