ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

warrior · 15 April 2010, 11:24 AM

wow...that really added to my knowledge in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkpw

Why is the Submariner viewed as superior to the Seamaster?

Coz it's better...

dkpw · 15 April 2010, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warrior

wow...that really added to my knowledge in this thread.

Leave the sarcasm to us in the UK - we're better at than you Americans.

Trust me.

B. Doggy · 15 April 2010, 11:59 AM

This thread is already far too long....

warrior · 15 April 2010, 12:01 PM

nah.... i won't trust you....you just really put me in my place right there. : )

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkpw

Leave the sarcasm to us in the UK - we're better at than you Americans.

Trust me.

improviz · 15 April 2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkpw

Leave the sarcasm to us in the UK - we're better at than you Americans.

Trust me.

Wow, even better than your opining skills?

DWdrummer · 15 April 2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkpw

Leave the sarcasm to us in the UK - we're better at than you Americans.

Trust me.

Well those in the UK do have the upper hand when it comes to that "dry" humor for sure.

LAJM · 15 April 2010, 02:16 PM

I own both a Seamaster and Submariner and they are both great watches. I had not worn the Seamaster for a long time and did today and it is an amazing watch to look at and very comfortable on the wrist. I will not choose between them and own the two until death due us apart.....

icnbne · 15 April 2010, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkpw

Leave the sarcasm to us in the UK - we're better at than you Americans.

Trust me.

another rason why this thread should close now..
and probably

Nairn1980 · 15 April 2010, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkpw

Leave the sarcasm to us in the UK - we're better at than you Americans.

Trust me.

No reflection on us Scots....honestly!

I'm Scottish just like you, but that is a shocking thing to say. No one or race or nationality is any better than the other.

It is a shocking ignorance, lack of intelligence, and sweeping generalisation.

Despite being Scottish, I spent 5 years in England, and visit the USA frequently, where I have some of the best friends I have ever met.

I just hate all this "we are better than you" nonsense.

marcinthemiddle · 15 April 2010, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nairn1980

I'm Scottish just like you, but that is a shocking thing to say. No one or race or nationality is any better than the other.

It is a shocking ignorance, lack of intelligence, and sweeping generalisation.

Despite being Scottish, I spent 5 years in England, and visit the USA frequently, where I have some of the best friends I have ever met.

I just hate all this "we are better than you" nonsense.

x2! Agreed. I spend equal amounts of time between Orange, CT USA and Pentraeth, Anglesey...Nairn has it nailed down. Americans are quite capable of that biting humour you pride yourself on... That was a childish and silly thing to post.

Mockingbird · 16 April 2010, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcinthemiddle

x2! Agreed. I spend equal amounts of time between Orange, CT USA and Pentraeth, Anglesey...Nairn has it nailed down. Americans are quite capable of that biting humour you pride yourself on... That was a childish and silly thing to post.

Yes, along with his first very vague and unhelpful comment that basically said the opposite of what the original poster wanted.

Mike B · 16 April 2010, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcinthemiddle

x2! Agreed. I spend equal amounts of time between Orange, CT USA and Pentraeth, Anglesey...Nairn has it nailed down. Americans are quite capable of that biting humour you pride yourself on... That was a childish and silly thing to post.

Orange CT ?? Neat, I'm from CT as well ! (Vernon that is lol)

marcinthemiddle · 16 April 2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike B

Orange CT ?? Neat, I'm from CT as well ! (Vernon that is lol)

Hey Mike! Please to meetcha!

Methinks we should have a mini CT-GTG...

xjeeunitx · 16 April 2010, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdrazek

It's only a short while away. When the PO gets the 8500 movement, is sure to be >$5k. Look at how the AT and the Deville have bumped in price with the 8500 movement...

Omega ran the table for a while (in the US, at least) with the JFK inauguration watch and the Moonwatch but Rolex had a superior marketing machine here and they were able to raise prices steadily and well beyond the pricing of Omega. To their credit, they did have the first watertight movement and the first date changing movement...

The 70's/80's quartz watch crisis has passed and Omega has a well healed parent in Swatch. It follows that the parent will invest in technology and in marketing to restore Omega as a more premium brand in the marketplace. This has been done in Asia and in Europe, not so much the USA.

At the end of the day, it is hard to deny the Rolex marketing juggernaut and their historical accomplishments. However, Omega has come up with movements and fit/finish that are in the same league as Rolex.

So... the Submariner has the gravitas that comes from the Rolex brand (in the USA), but the Seasmaster coaxial is its equal if not superior in terms of movement quality and materials at a lower cost.

ON POINT.

dkpw · 17 April 2010, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nairn1980

I just hate all this "we are better than you" nonsense.

I agree - both Omega and Rolex are great brands and the Submariner and Seamaster are great examples of the diver's watch - my initial comment was designed, obliquely to emphasis the futility of such threads.

Clearly, not everyone determined my level of irony.

Mike B · 17 April 2010, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcinthemiddle

Hey Mike! Please to meetcha!

Methinks we should have a mini CT-GTG...

Check for a PM !

Rashid.bk · 17 April 2010, 06:09 PM

Very difficult comparison. When ever I hold a sub in my hand it feels fake, cheap, light and frilly, but it's such a beauty to behold.
Sub comes out on top(for the masses) for
1. marketing, marketing, marketing
2. depreciation prevention by markups, even people that don't know about watches think a rolex must be better... wow honey look at that rolie, it's 7 grand
3. going ridiculously in house and controlling the brand
4. not changing, ties into number one, except that this has created a perception of perfection within the brand, it's timeless, classic.
5. rolex does not play, they are quality time pieces, made bombproof, just many years ago, but they have just finally updated it

I love my PO. The sub pales in comparison to a PO, just grab both and actuate their functions you'll see, feel and hear the difference. Replace the sub with a SD 16600 now you got a real fight, imo.
My next watch will be a SD 16600(long time obsession). No matter what though, given the opportunity I'd venture to say about 80% of the posters here would buy the sub if money weren't an issue.

Why.....Magic, it's science. The koolaid mix is also in house now.

pz93c · 20 April 2010, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denver Dick

Oh, by the way, I don't believe Omega makes the Railmaster in a quartz version, they're all automatic chronometers. FWIW

Yeah, saw that. Meant AT.... somehow, it came out RM.

tomallen · 1 May 2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWdrummer

I have not owned a Submariner yet, but I will one day. I do own a Seamaster Pro now though. I have handled and worn many a Submariner and to me at least it does not "feel" like its a $5K+ watch. It is very well built, but feels cheap in its bracelet mostly, and feels light to me. My SMP on the other hand is built like a tank. The bracelet is many times better than the Rolex bracelet.

Im aware that Rolex uses a completely in house built movement, which contributes to the price of a Sub I am sure. At the same time I have trouble believing it is head and shoulders above a Swiss ETA based movement which becomes the Omega Ca. 1120 in my SMP.

I firmly believe it is Rolex's control of their dealers and marketing, along with annual price increases on new watches that keeps the prices of the pre owned Subs so high.

I actually had a guy with a Sub talk down to me yesterday when he saw my Omega. He said "Heh you have an Omega, I a Rolex Submariner, a real watch." Then he proceeded to shove it in my face and wiggle his wrist.

I said "Nice watch, someday Ill own one, but my Omega is every bit as good."

He did not like that at all.

I love all watches, Rolex and Omega are my preferred brands.

If you feel a Submariner and a Seamaster Professional side by side, the Omega feels like it should be the $5K watch to me. Forgetting the name on the dial that is. My SMP puts the Submariner to shame in weight, feel and bracelet IMO. That said I DO love the Submariner and will buy one. I mean no slight to Rolex whatsoever at all here. Just my observations.

What are yours on the matter?

I agree on the bracelet as far as being solid and no sheet steel stamping, but I broke two bracelets on my Omega SMP James Bond. I never broke a bracelet on a Sub.

chris russell · 18 June 2010, 06:42 AM

get the Seamaster Aqua Terra with the Tek dial. It has Omega's totally in-house and Daniels-equipped 8500 movement, and therein beats the heart of a champion. It won't dive as deep as the Sub, but it costs less, looks wonderful, and keeps time like a quartz. I have one, as well as the Rolex Sea Dweller, (similar to the Sub, only dives even deeper to 4000 feet), and although I love both, I would not place the Rolex above the Omega.

chris russell · 18 June 2010, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

"Liquid metal" nuts take heed, ceramic isnt all its cracked up to be...

Is that a pun? 'Cracked' up to be...
Get it?

AJC · 18 June 2010, 08:58 AM

Hey Guys,

Rolex and Omega are both very fine watches. If you were to account for the cost of materials and labour making them, they would nearly be on par.

However Rolex have, to their credit have had a brilliant marketing plan and stuck with it. Keeping supply in check, having price rises each year and having an AD network that is exclusive and that dont do huge discounts has helped Rolex to get the upper hand.

Omega on the hand had dealers here in Australia in nearly every shopping mall, and a discount was very easy to get. (Big discounts with up to 20- 30% off. This has now changed and it is reflected in some of the second hand prices of Omega watches.

Back to the original question however, I beleive the Omega is a better product simply because I like the style better.

Cheers

15 April 2010, 11:59 AM	#93
B. Doggy "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Real Name: Bryan Location: Oregon Posts: 7,399	This thread is already far too long.... __________________ Rolex / Panerai / Omega

18 June 2010, 06:42 AM	#110
chris russell Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Peterborough, ON Watch: your mouth. Posts: 1,023	If you want an Omega that is at least the equal of the Submariner... get the Seamaster Aqua Terra with the Tek dial. It has Omega's totally in-house and Daniels-equipped 8500 movement, and therein beats the heart of a champion. It won't dive as deep as the Sub, but it costs less, looks wonderful, and keeps time like a quartz. I have one, as well as the Rolex Sea Dweller, (similar to the Sub, only dives even deeper to 4000 feet), and although I love both, I would not place the Rolex above the Omega.

18 June 2010, 08:58 AM	#112
AJC "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 1,878	Hey Guys, Rolex and Omega are both very fine watches. If you were to account for the cost of materials and labour making them, they would nearly be on par. However Rolex have, to their credit have had a brilliant marketing plan and stuck with it. Keeping supply in check, having price rises each year and having an AD network that is exclusive and that dont do huge discounts has helped Rolex to get the upper hand. Omega on the hand had dealers here in Australia in nearly every shopping mall, and a discount was very easy to get. (Big discounts with up to 20- 30% off. This has now changed and it is reflected in some of the second hand prices of Omega watches. Back to the original question however, I beleive the Omega is a better product simply because I like the style better. Cheers __________________ Mailman

15 April 2010, 02:16 PM	#97
LAJM "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Larry Location: Canada Watch: Explorer II Posts: 270	I own both a Seamaster and Submariner and they are both great watches. I had not worn the Seamaster for a long time and did today and it is an amazing watch to look at and very comfortable on the wrist. I will not choose between them and own the two until death due us apart.....

17 April 2010, 06:09 PM	#107
Rashid.bk "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas Watch: 12800ft = 3900m Posts: 11,172	Very difficult comparison. When ever I hold a sub in my hand it feels fake, cheap, light and frilly, but it's such a beauty to behold. Sub comes out on top(for the masses) for 1. marketing, marketing, marketing 2. depreciation prevention by markups, even people that don't know about watches think a rolex must be better... wow honey look at that rolie, it's 7 grand 3. going ridiculously in house and controlling the brand 4. not changing, ties into number one, except that this has created a perception of perfection within the brand, it's timeless, classic. 5. rolex does not play, they are quality time pieces, made bombproof, just many years ago, but they have just finally updated it I love my PO. The sub pales in comparison to a PO, just grab both and actuate their functions you'll see, feel and hear the difference. Replace the sub with a SD 16600 now you got a real fight, imo. My next watch will be a SD 16600(long time obsession). No matter what though, given the opportunity I'd venture to say about 80% of the posters here would buy the sub if money weren't an issue. Why.....Magic, it's science. The koolaid mix is also in house now.

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