Omega head to head with Rolex

[wilfreb]

first, this is not a Rolex vs Omega thread.


for a long time Omega has been the main competitor to Rolex but always was cheaper and perceived as an entry level, there was the great value on the brand, excellent timepieces at reasonable prices.

but as many of us now Omega is working hard to catch up with Rolex, to compete head to head, with the new movements, ceramic bezels, high prices...

next year the new PlanetOcean and the new Submariner prices will be almost equal.

i want to know your opinion on this matter,

do you think Omega can really compete head to head with the monster that Rolex is? its a wise decision?

Omega cheaper prices was their advantage vs Rolex, will you buy a Seamaster over a Submariner with the same price tag?

we all know the unmatched quality that Rolex watches possesses, does Omega have the capacity to produce similar quality?

thanks.

[Sponon]

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

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

[NMS75]

I still think Omega are behind Rolex but the gap is now quite narrow. The quality of Omega watches are, in my humble opinion, equal to that of Rolex. However, Rolex still have that brand image edge and from what I can tell from talking to people Omega's after-sales service isn't quite as good as Rolex's yet.

This is only how I personally perceive it to be and others will no doubt disagree with me. That said I bet if you went out on to the street and asked the average person which is a more famous brand out the two then Rolex would probably nudge into first place.

M

[A.I.]

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

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

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

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

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

[NMS75]

Originally Posted by A.I.

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

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

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

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

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

I buy both Omega and Rolex - so I am both beautiful and dull at the same time

Only kidding - I love both my Sub and Seamaster PO

M

[darwen]

I have to say I have 2 omegas and 2 rolexes too, and love all of them.

However given the choice of an omega vs a rolex for the same price, Rolex would win with me every time.

In my opinion, Rolex as a brand has far more presence than Omega. So although I think Omegas in many ways are at least equal to Rolexes in watch manufacture, quality and design (I prefer the design of my Seamaster PO to the design of a submariner or sea dweller for instance) to me nothing beats wearing a Rolex on your wrist.

[RRGHOST1]

Omega make nice watches but they will not compete on the same level. I remember in 1975 when i bought a SS Sub/Date, i asked the AD who made the better watch. His reply was Rolex stayed with their regular designs year in year out and Omega were very go ahead and modern. So this Omega v Rolex was going on then never mind now.

[esm]

IMO - Omega makes great watches and I love some of them. As much as they "want" to compete with Rolex at the same level - it just won't happen, at least for now anyway.

You buy Omega because you like/love the brand, history and design, not because it can be better than Rolex. Just my 2 pence.

[hutchman]

Rolex doesn't manufacture split second chronographs, pulsometers, or 100k + tourbillions as Omega does.

[Rogue884]

Goes back to the old saying, "Jack of all trades and master of none." Omega makes nice watches, however they are diversified in too many directions. They have never really stuck with a particular style for their watches for any length of time, with the exception of the Speedmaster 3750.50. Which I would say is probably the quintessential Omega. I think if Omega narrowed its focus, instead of letting the Marketing Department run away with the show, they would probably be in the same catagory as Rolex. It seems like several manufactures have brought back retro watches, ie; the 50 Fathom, and Ploprof which tells me that they did not have the foresight in the initial run to realize what they had and had to go back to catch faded success. Where as Rolex has maintained its tradition, making very slight changes over a very long period of time.

[Ed Rooney]

If I had no watch and walked into a Rolex/Omega AD, it would be hard for me not to buy a Planet Ocean.

[Mike B]

I think eventually Omega WILL be equal to Rolex. Maybe not for some time yet (at least a few more years if not more), BUT I have to admit, Omega does make some fantastic watches !!

[chriseskew24]

Originally Posted by Sponon

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

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

Omega is alreay makeing all in house movement just not in all there watches yet. :) As far as design changes that is Omegas thing..

[esm]

I think eventually all omega should have their in house 8500 movement in it apart from the DeVille HV which should still have the 8501 movement.

[WJGESQ]

Originally Posted by A.I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bcacncnc]

I agree that Rolex do a fantastic job with advertising/marketing/branding - much better IMHO than Omega. Therefore, in the eyes of the general public they are perceived as having higher status than Omega - which frankly does carry some weight.

[Ed Rooney]

Rolex is better at protecting their brand's value. Omega is ok at it. I don't mean going after grays or fakes. I mean keeping the value of all their stuff high.

Most of the public regards Tag-Heuer as a high quality brand. They make some nice stuff, but when you can get a used quartz 2000 diver for $250, that's not good for the brand. Go look on ebay. You can get a basic Seamaster dress watch from the 1980's for $300. Try that with a Datejust, or even a Date. Those old in-house 1120/21 mov't were great. You can get quartz Bond Seamasters all day for $750, and autos for $1100. Quartz cheapens a brand. Marketing too many different models cheapens a brand. Omega made a digital. A digital.

[C. Davidson]

Omega has the capability to make similiar quality watches to Rolex, however, I believe that since Omega is part of a publicly held company(SWATCH), they are ultimately beholden to their stockholders. I just got a feeling that when push comes to shove, they will cut on quality so that their shareholders can get a bigger dividend at the end of the year. This is just my perception, my guess on the matter. Like all things that lie in the future, who really knows?

I believe that Rolex has stronger financial footing, being tied to the Wilsdorf Foundation. Independence from shareholder demands gives Rolex more freedom to make the finest quality watches, no matter what the cost.

For the same reason, I bet on Patek versus their competitors.



Disclaimer: I have 3 Omegas and 1 Rolex.

Edit: Great Post Ed Rooney!

Edit2: Excellent post, Chris from Florida (Rouge). Very insightful.

Originally Posted by esm

I think eventually all omega should have their in house 8500 movement in it apart from the DeVille HV which should still have the 8501 movement.

Amen! Then they would be more even with Rolex...and why do they make one model with the 8500 and an identical version in quartz???!!!

[Perdu]

I wanted to comment on Omega's somewhat lack of model consistency. Personally I don't like it but Omega choose to offer more fashionable watches and chop and change designs more. They do it consciously. I'm sure Omega will be successful moving up market but one of the attractions for me was the value they represented and I think that's true for many people.

[htc8p]

i think its a bad move. you dont go mano a mano againts a giant. you have to use guerilla warfare to win since these giants are slow to react.

omega should keep its products high value for money and keep pushing cutting edge design.

they will win through high appeal and volume.

if they go head to head with rolex they have a lot of catchin up from behind and you can expect rolex not to just sit down and watch

[Yazo]

Originally Posted by Ed Rooney

Rolex is better at protecting their brand's value. Omega is ok at it. I don't mean going after grays or fakes. I mean keeping the value of all their stuff high.

Most of the public regards Tag-Heuer as a high quality brand. They make some nice stuff, but when you can get a used quartz 2000 diver for $250, that's not good for the brand. Go look on ebay. You can get a basic Seamaster dress watch from the 1980's for $300. Try that with a Datejust, or even a Date. Those old in-house 1120/21 mov't were great. You can get quartz Bond Seamasters all day for $750, and autos for $1100. Quartz cheapens a brand. Marketing too many different models cheapens a brand. Omega made a digital. A digital.

Well said.

[autofiend]

Originally Posted by NMS75

I buy both Omega and Rolex - so I am both beautiful and dull at the same time

Only kidding - I love both my Sub and Seamaster PO

M

+2 for me...I enjoy both of them about equally. Omega has some definite catch up to play in its brand image. With the release of the 8500 calibre watches (rumor rumbling about an 8500 PO debut in 2011), the Swatch Group is attempting to inch Omega closer to Rolex in exclusivity (movement wise), not to mention with "help" from a sizeable price increase.

[TARDIS]

Right now I have to rate the Seamaster Planet Ocean ahead of my Rolex Submariners because:

I bought one last month.
Its BIGGER
The dial, hands and lume are superior to the Subs.
The SS bracelet is smoother and the clasp closes without overlap to the bracelet links.
The Seamaster rubber strap option fits beautifully as has a great design.
The case back is exquisite.
The Co-Axial fulfills all my requirements of accuracy as a COSC.
The presentation box and pixel cards are ahead of Rolex.

This does not mean I dislike Rolex. I have owned four of them and the best was the Sea Dweller which I was very sad to lose due to investments going pear shaped a few years ago. Some lucky sod is walking around with it on his wrist having got it at an absolute bargain.

I do like the 904L steel on Rolex. It has a distinctive gleam. I also like the flat sapphire crystal which gives the watch a classy look.

Head to head on the brands?

ROLEX has its nose in front with marketing, but although it is a great marque, it is becoming more and more difficult to see as value for money IMO.

Omega has the vote for me.

[xjeeunitx]

Originally Posted by wilfreb

first, this is not a Rolex vs Omega thread.


for a long time Omega has been the main competitor to Rolex but always was cheaper and perceived as an entry level, there was the great value on the brand, excellent timepieces at reasonable prices.

but as many of us now Omega is working hard to catch up with Rolex, to compete head to head, with the new movements, ceramic bezels, high prices...

next year the new PlanetOcean and the new Submariner prices will be almost equal.

i want to know your opinion on this matter,

do you think Omega can really compete head to head with the monster that Rolex is? its a wise decision?

Omega cheaper prices was their advantage vs Rolex, will you buy a Seamaster over a Submariner with the same price tag?

we all know the unmatched quality that Rolex watches possesses, does Omega have the capacity to produce similar quality?

thanks.

What new planet ocean are you referring to? I don't think there is a new model coming out unless you're talking about liquid metal. That watch is already out in limited numbers.

[Sose]

Exactly which Omegas run the 8500 and which one runs the 8501? Which one is co-axial?
I'm a little confused. I think I should probably just go to bed after this question.

[derekloimer]

I went to the Omega flagship store in Sydney last week and it was very impressive. I looked at one of the new Co Axial Hour Vision watches that was retailing at AUD8500 which was the same as a Milguass in the Rolex AD.

The Omega salesman believed that their watch was superior due to the Co Axial movement needing longer service intervals.

I have a couple of Omegas but I am not convinced that I would pay Rolex money for one.

The new Omega line is pretty impressive though. The new Aqua Terra are very nice.

[esm]

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

Not too sure what Speedy Pro Co-axial has.

[A.I.]

Originally Posted by xjeeunitx

unless you're talking about liquid metal. That watch is already out in limited numbers.

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

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

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

Just my opinion.

[TARDIS]

Originally Posted by A.I.

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

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

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

Just my opinion.

I absolutely agree!

[Hooper]

Originally Posted by Sponon

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

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

I would agree