PO or Sub?

[seporith]

"More comfortable" depends on who is wearing the watch. "More accurate" they are both usually very good at timekeeping. We are all individuals & having owned many different makes & models I have enjoyed some aspect of each of them (some more than others) and can appreciate what others picked for their enjoyment. Enjoy what you get & hopefully you will get others later & reflect positively on something of each one. Anthony

[mr.president1]

I own both the PO (CrPO) and the Sub (C), and I'd say the Sub will always scream "sub" for me over the PO.

[hpowders]

On the contrary, both watches are special and you can't go wrong with either. I would put the Omega movement slightly ahead of the Sub's, but that's like splitting hairs. For wearability and comfort, I'd go with the Sub C. The PO is a bit too heavy, IMO.

[JB7]

Originally Posted by salty_snack

What was the going price for a PO 2500 new? I don't recall. I see them going for the mid $2Ks all day long and if you look hard enough and are patient you can pick one up for the low $2ks. (especially if your looking for the orange with leather)

Yep, you're right about that. In 2008, I paid 1600GBP for a new one. The RRP was about £1800 if I remember rightly, and I see they're averaging £2000/2200 now. Not so mint ones can be had for about £1800.

What is the deal with the accuracy on Rolex Subs, I hear many mixed opinions, Some are +1, as already discussed here, but I do hear some not so great stories on these boards. Do you expect your Sub to be +1, and never +3 and up? Is it common to not get +1. I'd expect it if I'm paying nearly 6K for a watch. I'd be pissed off I was paying 3K for a watch. But we know it does happen.

[sappie66]

Originally Posted by salty_snack

The PO will never become an iconic watch... EVER! Omega keeps shooting itself in the foot, so to speak, by making literally dozens of different iterations of the PO, varying in size, materials, colors, and complications... and that's not to mentions the endless productions of "limited editions" which typically have very little about them which is limited.

The only iconic omega is the speedmaster pro and if omega keeps going the way they are they'll end up muddling that heritage too with over baked special editions.

The sub is a quintessential iconic watch and almost certainly retain that honor long into the future.

I agree with this, however, what you fear about what Omega might do with the Moonwatch has been happening for a while now. There have been many special editions of the 861/1861-powered Speedy Pros, but what is especially ghastly now is that they are calling the new 9300-powered Speedies "moonwatch" too. There is only one moonwatch and that is the 3570 -- the truest descendant anyway, and the only one that is an icon. Good that they are still making that one.

Oh, and the OP's PO is an example of something I find truly embarrassing about Omega -- this propensity to make limited editions for 007 movies. Should I wear my 007 watch with my Spiderman pajamas? I like my regular adult PO just fine.

[asadtiger]

I am an absolute Omega fan..I just find them much superior in quality and feel to Rolex...sorry, ut that has just been my experience.

[FTX I]

I had two POs and sold both of them to fund my Sub-C and could not be happier.

[psv]

PO any day. What a fantastic watch. In fact the PO is the new Sub!
How about that?

I'm glad you like your purchase decision but I think the Omega Planet Ocean deserves to be judge on its own merits and can stand on its own legs, so to say.

Having said that, it is a lot of things but it has never, nor will ever be, "...the new Sub!"

How about that? :-)

[Ichaice]

Why not both?

The Sub Date and the PO 2500 are no longer with me. I do regret letting the PO go but don't miss the Sub date at all.

[WJGESQ]

Originally Posted by SearChart

The PO is good looking but it's definitely not the new sub.
It's heavier, it's thicker, resale value isn't as good as the sub and it's not as iconic.

It's better than a new sub. Any side by side comparison makes that obvious to all but the delusional.

[Grumpy Badger]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Well, the silicon hairspring is more resistant to shocks and always retains it shape, so it achieves better isochronism. As for Co-Axial, the second generation three level version is ridiculously stable as a timekeeper, and simply does not go wrong. I've been in the biz since the cal. 8500 was launched (2007) and I have never had one returned under warranty. I lost count a long time ago the number of cal. 3135s I've had returned under warranty. It really is that good. The cal. 3135 is a dinosaur by comparison

Admittedly it was in an AT not a PO case but I had a watch with an 8500 movement delivered and by the time it got here the winding rotor sounded like a bag of spanners in a cement mixer...
There was no obvious damage to the box so I doubt the delivery driver had been paying rugby with it but the company line was that it had been damaged in transit.

Don't get me wrong, I love my (replacement) AT 8500 but I don't think the movement is as tough as a Rolex.

No matter how rough the driver was handling my omega I know the sub with it's prehistoric movement survived the impact from this with no dramas...



And, before you ask, no...! I'm not volunteering to recreate this wearing my 8500 to contrast and compare!!!

[MrLee]

The po is a great watch but new sub?.....not even close, nowhere near the x-factor of the sub

[MP5]

The huge chip on Omega fanbois shoulders is always hilarious to witness. So insecure always having to justify. Just a hint, if you have to do that, then......

[SUPERDOC]

Originally Posted by MP5

The huge chip on Omega fanbois shoulders is always hilarious to witness. So insecure always having to justify. Just a hint, if you have to do that, then......

I don't think that there is any attempt to justify rooted in insecurity...
What I read is arguments in favor of the PO, which was elicited by the OP.

And don't think for a second that Omega fanboys are those who can't afford a Rolex...much less the very pedestrian Submariner...

I think my grocery bagger has a submariner.

I love Rolex as well, and have many Rolex...I just appreciate the history, design, technology and efforts to innovate in Omega..

Lets not be deluded...Rolex did not rise to its place during the and after the 'Quartz crisis' because of a conscious decision to stay automatic...they 'Pulled a Homer' - they simply lacked the technology and capacity to go quartz...for all they new at the time, they could have been bracing for the end.

Like I said I love Rolex, but I have no delusions about what they are -

As for PO vs Sub - depends on what's important to you...
to argue them on their capacity to function as time keepers is ridiculous in my opinion...if you wanted the most accurate time keeper go by a digital timex..

[cedargrove]

Originally Posted by WJGESQ

It's better than a new sub. Any side by side comparison makes that obvious to all but the delusional.

I often wonder if people making this claim have actually held the watches side by side and made the comparison. If they did, they'd have a hard time arguing against the superior fit and finish of the Sub. And I say this as an owner/lover of the PO.

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

I don't think that there is any attempt to justify rooted in insecurity...

I'm not so sure. The comparison to Rolex is a regular occurrence in Omega forums. It sometimes still surprises me when an Omega thread is moving along nicely and some fanboy inserts a comparison to Rolex, often in a disparaging way. That to me is a sign of insecurity - they elevate themselves by putting down others. I'll bet that a large percentage of threads in the Omega forum will refer to Rolex in at least one of the posts.

[ninotcs]

Originally Posted by Dream99

Hi MAte. That's the build quality of a true divers watch Mate. Omega does what it says on the tin, Rolex does not but hey as long as its a rolex thats ok Right.

I had a PO with 2500C movement. Orange bezel 42mm
It was a biggest piece if S..t.
I had movement stopping dead on me.

AD sent it teice for repair, swapped it on third instance, and on 4th i requested my money back.

Never again.
I have a no date sub and i am very pleased with performance. Simple, rugged, accurate, reliable. thats what i need. I normally dont dive past 10 feet, as 99% of PO or rolex users

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by cedargrove

I'm not so sure. The comparison to Rolex is a regular occurrence in Omega forums. It sometimes still surprises me when an Omega thread is moving along nicely and some fanboy inserts a comparison to Rolex, often in a disparaging way. That to me is a sign of insecurity - they elevate themselves by putting down others. I'll bet that a large percentage of threads in the Omega forum will refer to Rolex in at least one of the posts.

Perfect.

[hpowders]

I'm also happy with my 114060. Reliable, accurate and good looking. Makes me feel terrific whenever I'm wearing it, which is every day. What more can one ask?

[improviz]

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

Lets not be deluded...Rolex did not rise to its place during the and after the 'Quartz crisis' because of a conscious decision to stay automatic...they 'Pulled a Homer' - they simply lacked the technology and capacity to go quartz...for all they new at the time, they could have been bracing for the end.

Umm...ahem:
http://oysterquartz.net/

Read so that you may learn...

[MP5]

Originally Posted by improviz

Umm...ahem:
http://oysterquartz.net/

Read so that you may learn...

This, I just shake my head sometimes, but it does become Crystal clear what level of understanding we are dealing with sometimes.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by cedargrove

I'm not so sure. The comparison to Rolex is a regular occurrence in Omega forums. It sometimes still surprises me when an Omega thread is moving along nicely and some fanboy inserts a comparison to Rolex, often in a disparaging way. That to me is a sign of insecurity - they elevate themselves by putting down others. I'll bet that a large percentage of threads in the Omega forum will refer to Rolex in at least one of the posts.

You see the same thing by many Rolex owners in threads involving Audemars Piguet, Blancpain, Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, et al, and there's a much larger price differential there. For example, go look at any Fifty Fathoms thread in the Rolex forum, you'll see the same thing there, and the FF costs quite a bit more than the Sub. It is, sadly, human nature, for some.

Price-wise, well, some people could stand to be a bit more realistic here: they are within a few thousand of each other at most, so it's not as if the Sub is within the domain of princes while the PO is in the domain of paupers. The snootiness and fanboyism of some is a sad spectacle; people on both sides of the fence need to be aware that tastes vary, and learn to be comfortable in their choices without trying to make others UNcomfortable with theirs.

[hitman23]

Having had both a PO and a sub, I actually liked the PO more. Sold the sub, kept the PO, bought an expII 42. I like both more than the sub.

[SUPERDOC]

Originally Posted by improviz

Umm...ahem:
http://oysterquartz.net/

Read so that you may learn...

Originally Posted by MP5

This, I just shake my head sometimes, but it does become Crystal clear what level of understanding we are dealing with sometimes.

you send me to a Rolex fansite in order to defend a Rolex product....

Hardly a compelling argument...

Why not just refer me to the General Rolex discussion threads on TRF

[Planet E.]

After wearing my 45.5mm PO 8500 for a few days. I swap to my Sub. Date last night and this morning. I felt the Sub. Date is an elegant and classy piece. Very useful for formal dinner wear.

PO on the other hand. Is more rugged looking. Nice daily.

That is not to say that Sub. date is more fragile. I am sure all Rolexes are tough work horses that seldom fail. The reverse is not too sure for Omegas. Especially with their new in house Co-axial movements.

Just my humble opinions for the time being. Thanks.

[ninotcs]

My casio g shock is better than PO and Sub. It is more accurate and with more functionality.

It also costs less than a bracelet link for Rolex.

Try toping that

[AK797]

Old sub and ceramic PO were comparable but the fit, finish and build quality of the new subc is a big step up. Just a turn of that ceramic bezel and a switch of your glidelock reminds you of this every time.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

you send me to a Rolex fansite in order to defend a Rolex product....

Hardly a compelling argument...

Why not just refer me to the General Rolex discussion threads on TRF

Actually, I didn't send you there to defend any Rolex product; I sent you there to show you that you'd made a completely false statement.

Let's review:

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

Lets not be deluded...Rolex did not rise to its place during the and after the 'Quartz crisis' because of a conscious decision to stay automatic...they 'Pulled a Homer' - they simply lacked the technology and capacity to go quartz...for all they new at the time, they could have been bracing for the end.

Totally false. The "fansite" you refer to and obviously didn't bother to read clearly and unequivocally documents that Rolex was working on the development of quartz watches *in parallel* with Seiko et al since the early 1960's, which categorically disproves your assertion that they lacked the technology; not only did they work on the development of quartz watches, they actually *released* quartz watches beginning in the early 1970's, developed their own in-house quartz movement, and sold them for years afterwards:

It would be a mistake to assume that quartz watches were an afterthought for Rolex, even despite the company's overwhelming commitment to mechanical movements. Rolex began their own research into electronic timekeeping in the early 1950s, and was awarded their first patent for an electro-mechanical watch design in 1952. In fact, according to James Dowling in his book The Best of Time, of the 50 patents issued to Rolex between 1960 and 1990, 21 of them were for electronic watches. Rolex was even issued patents in the 70s for digital (LED) watch movements. One such movement made it all the way to the prototype stage and was issued the reference number 7065.

Rolex's first commercially available quartz watch was the Quartz Date 5100. Introduced in 1970, this watch shared the Beta 21 movement used by other Swiss companies like Omega and Enicar. Rolex only produced 1000 of these watches before beginning development of their own quartz movement and the watch that would eventually become the Oysterquartz. In 1977, after five years of design, development, and testing, Rolex introduced their first completely in-house quartz movements (the 5035 and 5055) and the Datejust (5035) and Day-Date (5055) Oysterquartz models that would house them....

...For 25 years Rolex produced the Oysterquartz in Datejust models (17000 stainless steel, 17013 steel/YG, 17014 steel/WG), and Day-Date models in all gold (19018 YG, 19019 WG). Special models of the Oysterquartz were also produced with jeweled dials, bezels, and bracelets.

In other words, your statement was, and is, completely and totally false. Not only did Rolex not "lack the technology and capacity to go quartz", they engaged in R&D of quartz/electronic watches dating to the early 1960s, *and* created their own, in-house quartz movement which they sold for years.

That's not fanboyism, it is fact. And you might want to take a look at my signature before jumping to conclusions about that particular topic.

[Rashid.bk]

Ford!
Although the new Tundras are pretty awesome.

[JB7]

The main defence for Omega here, and I like both watches remember, this is not a bashing... is that a lot of bystanders will question the validity of your Sub, (90% maybe, fakes) but nobody questions the PO. There are of course fakes of the PO, but most out there in the wild are genuine. I don't think this can be said of the Sub. Not that it's an argument for the quality of the watch, but its a comfortability factor

[SUPERDOC]

Originally Posted by improviz

Actually, I didn't send you there to defend any Rolex product; I sent you there to show you that you'd made a completely false statement.

Let's review:


Totally false. The "fansite" you refer to and obviously didn't bother to read clearly and unequivocally documents that Rolex was working on the development of quartz watches *in parallel* with Seiko et al since the early 1960's, which categorically disproves your assertion that they lacked the technology; not only did they work on the development of quartz watches, they actually *released* quartz watches beginning in the early 1970's, developed their own in-house quartz movement, and sold them for years afterwards:

The Dummy emoticon is a bit much I would say...

I will concede that the 'lack of technology' statement was hyperbole..but I stand by my statement that Rolex's rise during the Quartz crisis Was NOT an intentional strategic move.

Fact is, the Beta 21 which was THE movement for Swiss Quartz, and to which Omega contributed, and likely on which Omega spent a fortune, along with many other swiss houses that perished.

Rolex was initially involved, but couldn't easily put the Beta 21 into the Rolex Oyster case ...(you can find some Rare Rolex Betas in at auction) , so Rolex started focussing on their own 'in-house Quartz' but that one was fairly late to the Party - (1977) and was an Expensive endeavor for Rolex, and if you look at the numbers of production - very limited...

Just imagine if the Beta 21 would have fit into an Oyster case...
They may have gone down the same road as so many others...

The fact that it took Rolex an added 5 yrs of research and Development to release the OysterQuartz suggests that they did not have at their disposal the same technologies as the Swiss watch 'Cartel' that funded the Beta 21 which was out in 1970...

I'm sure that there are inaccuracies in the above statements - and feel free to analyze with the scrutiny of a prosecuting attorney...

Just, if you please, try not to call me a dummy. I think that kind of thing betrays the civility of this forum.. We're all here because we have something in common...Lively debates such as Rolex vs Omega shouldn't turn ugly..

This is wealthy individuals debating over luxury goods that are all ridiculously overpriced....like someone said..the Casio beats all on every merit..

This whole hobby is laughable, so please try to be in on the joke..