Is a Submariner an upgrade from a PO?

[jmin]

I own an Orange PO and have owned a sub. I like both. IMO, the PO has a nicer sapphire crystal (blue tint) and has a more solid feel. However, the sub is a classic and will always be recognisable.

[WJGESQ]

Originally Posted by TurboWatch

I own both brands. Some days I wear this....other days I wear these.

Your 3513.50, Omega Speedmaster, rules the roost in your series of photos.

[tomee]

i own both!
i wear the PO whenever i feel like abit of colour :D

[toptime]

That will definitely be my upgrade, i always wanted the submarine, still haven't find a good deal yet.

[donq]

I think it's strange that these threads about how "My Seamaster is just as good as a Submariner and it's cheaper and all. No! Really!!" come up all the time.

I never have seen a Sub owner trying to convince others that his watch is just as good as a Seamaster or a P.O.

I've owned both and the In-House movt. of the Rolex is the main basis for it's superiority. Omega is trying so hard to move in to Rolex's level of prestige that they've come up with their own new movt. which has no heritage and questionable durability.

In regards to the bracelet, the Omega does feel very nice in the hand, however the lack of fine adjustment always bothered me. Weight is not the final word as far as quality goes and the Rolex bracelet is comfortable and has never let me down.

[WJGESQ]

Have to contest the presumption of Rolex superiority and respectfully note that such a presumption exists only on account of price. There is no way an objective comparison ends with the Sub in the lead. A lower price point is only an admirable benefit. The Seamasters simply have more detail and a greater gravitas with respect to appearance and feel. Many others who could have had either simply chose Omega.

[33JS]

The Deep Sea clasp is a real step forward for Rolex, but the lesser models still suffer from the old pressed steel, flimsy feel type. I know they're being upgraded slowly.

For me it's about the feel of when I set the time on my Omegas v's my Rolexes. The Omega feels lilke the hands are directly connected to the crown. The Rolex 'slaps' about the place and the time is difficult to set in comparison when I'm trying to set it very accurately.

[unclesallie]

Originally Posted by Changmaisausage

Each to their own, some people would say they love the Omega others the Rolex.

IMO both watches are great for day to day wear there is very little difference they both tell the time and are strong rugged sports watches. However the Rolex brand carries more kudos, is it worth the extra money? only you can decide that.

agreed. but i would personally buy a ss sub date...classic iconic rolex, with great resale value.

[fishrising]

Originally Posted by skip73

I now currently own an Omega Planet Ocean for which I have owned for the past 3 years.

Whenever I walk past a Rolex dealer I see the Sub LV beckoning me at the window!

In my personal experience, I had owned an orange bezel PO 45.5 for over a year. Then decided to sell it for a SUBLV. The SUBLV stayed with me for about 3 months, when I decided to go back to a PO. I now have the black bezel with orange numbers PO 45.5 and am very happy!

My situation might be a bit different, as I have nearly 8.5" wrists. So size, was a major contributor to my decision. Also, I think the PO bracelet is way more comfortable than the Oyster bracelet.

Just my $0.02....

[improviz]

I own two of each (PO and SMP from Omega, Daytona and Sub from Rolex), and in terms of accuracy, it's a hands-down win for the Rolexes. Since I set them all last Sunday for DST, the Sub has gained roughly a second a day, while the SMP is already about 40 seconds fast. However, the SMP is several months newer, and may slow up a bit after it's been broken in, we shall see...

The PO is faring much better, it's running about 2.5 seconds fast. The king is the Daytona, which is losing about 0.75 seconds per day. The Daytona is the most precise of the bunch; it's been maintaining less-than-one-second accuracy pretty much since I purchased it (the Sub has also been running a very consistent +1 or so since I got it); the PO is very good as well, but it isn't as consistent.

So movement-wise, I'd say that at least in my case, the Rolexes are doing a better job, but I still love my Omegas. Value-wise, they're pretty tough to beat, and appearance-wise, they are top notch. In terms of solidity, they're built like tanks, no complaints there.

Movement-wise, as reported by Larry and others, the Rolex movements incorporate several notable improvements over the Omega movements, but the ETA movements in the Omegas are excellent movements and are quite robust, so I wouldn't let that make the decision for me either, with one caveat: from what I've read the balance bridge on the Rolex does offer superior shock protection to the balance cock in the Omega, so if you're quite tough on your watches (I'm not) this might be something worth noting.

If service is important, I will say that I've heard a number of unfavorable reviews of Omega's service as compared to Rolex's, but that's nothing a good independent watchmaker can't cure.

Personally, I am happy as a clam with all of my watches, have nothing bad to say about any of them.

Here are two good articles from WatchTime magazine testing both watches. Hopefully these will address the OP's questions:

SS Sub date:
http://www.watchbizz.com/archive/wt_...003_06_102.pdf

Omega PO:
http://www.watchbizz.com/archive/wt_...005_03_050.pdf

[Joey_V]

Originally Posted by WJGESQ

Have to contest the presumption of Rolex superiority and respectfully note that such a presumption exists only on account of price. There is no way an objective comparison ends with the Sub in the lead. A lower price point is only an admirable benefit. The Seamasters simply have more detail and a greater gravitas with respect to appearance and feel. Many others who could have had either simply chose Omega.

Many others? Really?? You speak for all the Omega owners?

The Sub is a classic watch pure and simple. The PO is a recent incarnation of an older Seamaster. I've owned both and though the PO is a good buy for the money, there is no substitute for the Sub in my opinion.

I'm personally also tired of all these comparos from Omega forums all over, if you have to justify a purchase of the PO based on whether it is equal or better than the Sub, then you might as well get the benchmark in the first place.

I say get both and be done with it.

[Joey_V]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

I'm of the other opinion, I think the P.O is a better watch than the Sub in it's current form. The big definining factor is simply the clasp. You have to bear in mind that the 16610 is a 20 year old watch, for all intents and purposes, and it certainly feels that way on the wrist. You'll miss the P.O's heft, certainly.

My advice? Hold onto the P.O for another year until the new Sub comes out, then I'd think about making the jump to Rolex

I have to disagree on the clasp comment. After carefully inspecting the clasps of both brands, I could go either way. The Sub's clasp is time tested and it works. It is secure as can be. It may not be as svelte or trim as the PO's, but the PO's clasp (if you look closely at exactly what is holding your clasp together) is flimsy upon close inspection, IMO. There are 2 thin wire-like metal materials that run parallel to each other within the clasp lock... and this is connected to a small stalk on the opposing side.

I feel like I could almost rip it open if I had to.

[warrior]

Really what? Like you, I have personal experience with both and I do currently own both. I prefer the PO on virtually all fronts.

The PO definitely has more wrist presence and has a more solid feel on the wrist than the Sub. I think the solid links on the bracelet look and feel better. I personally think the PO is the more handsome watch...the slightly domed crystal, matte dial, and the silver ring on the PO face give it a far more unique character than the Rolex sub face IMO. And the arrow hands are way cool. The PO also keeps better time than my sub ( though, of course, these are my watches) and has waaaay better lume. For a dive/sport watch, it's better to have better lume. Finally, the dial is certainly more legible than my Sub. I love the fact that the crystal disappears into the dial on the PO.

Others may like the Sub better and I'm sure people can reasonably argue on many fronts ( as some have done in this thread), but I don't think the comparison is unjustified at all ( as you seem to imply). The Omega PO is a real good watch. It may not have the name cachet as compared to the Sub....and many may care, but I personally don't. In this particular instance, going against the grain ( at least in reference to the masses) is appropriate to me. In comparing it to the "benchmark" as you say, the PO wins IMO.

Originally Posted by Joey_V

Many others? Really?? You speak for all the Omega owners?

The Sub is a classic watch pure and simple. The PO is a recent incarnation of an older Seamaster. I've owned both and though the PO is a good buy for the money, there is no substitute for the Sub in my opinion.

I'm personally also tired of all these comparos from Omega forums all over, if you have to justify a purchase of the PO based on whether it is equal or better than the Sub, then you might as well get the benchmark in the first place.

I say get both and be done with it.

[Joey_V]

Different strokes for different folks.

Agree to disagree.

[smc]

Apparently there have been some problems with the co-axial escapement, but that aside...I chose a sub. I chose it because I liked the look better. If someone likes the look of a PO better, that's what they should buy. I also think the original sub fold-over clasp is better from a longevity standpoint. I do like the AR on the PO and wish Rolex would bloody well give in.

[CORPORATE]

Omega PO watch your buying the looks . Rolex Sub it's the prestige your getting but when you wear rolex this days people think at least 80% of them that your wearing "fake" but I don't care..

[GREENSUB]

Honestly, I find these threads a bit petty. Each of these watches is excellent. If you are happy when you look at your wrist, you have the right watch. If not, you need to get something else.

My choice, Rolex. No Omega. I like them both. Hell there are alot of watches I like and only a few that I don't. Upgrade shmupgrade. Enjoy your watch (s) and do not overthink it as it takes away from the experience.

Happy Holidays

[spuds]

Originally Posted by GREENSUB

....... Each of these watches is excellent. If you are happy when you look at your wrist, you have the right watch. If not, you need to get something else........
........... Enjoy your watch (s) and do not overthink it as it takes away from the experience.

WINNER!!!!!

[MassiveAttack]

keep the PO. is it coaxial?

get the GMT IIc if you want something that will compete with the luster of the PO, but keep the Omega.

[iwantagmt]

Yes, the Planet ocean has the co-axial escapement.

[aleiberman]

If you don't know what to do, just get yourself a replica to determine how much you really like the watch (Just kidding, sort of). Wear it for a few weeks, and if it still is what you wanted, then make the plunge and get yourself a genuine.

The other thing i've noticed about the PO is nobody will ever ask you if it's real? When you wear the Sub somoene will eventually ask you.

I've had a few Omega's and i'm a proud owner of a PO 42mm Black Bezel with White numbers. Classic looking watch with modern highlights. It is an amazing watch. After you get used to the weight, you feel strange with anything lighter or missing from your wrist. The SS looks amazing under certain light. The only thing I'd do different on the PO is remove the HE valve. I'm not a diver and the watch would look cleaner for me without it.

I've also owned an Aqua Terra but sold it becasue the speed clasp was crap. Kept opening all the time when my wrist bent in. Terrible clasp design IMO.

I had to have a Rolex so I got an Exp II White Dial. I didn't want the Sub as my 1st Rolex becasue everyone has them, and I'm not somone who wants to show off, "hey look i have a Rolex". I'm also not a Diver so the Explorer II was the right tool for the job.

With everything i've just said and belive in my heart...i still want the Classic Sub!!!! Why?!!!!

However, even thought i'm not a diver, I will never sacrifice my PO for a Sub!

[KarlFr]

After owning 16610, 16800 and a 5513 I'm sorry to say subs are nothing for me although I love Rolex. I'm not really an Omega fan but for sports (diving, hunting, running...) i use the smaller/lighter 42mm PO, better lume, bezel and moves around less with a rubber strap on. Here's my PO

[Nicko]

If you don't know what to do, just get yourself a replica to determine how much you really like the watch (Just kidding, sort of). Wear it for a few weeks, and if it still is what you wanted, then make the plunge and get yourself a genuine.

IMO not a good idea....

The other thing i've noticed about the PO is nobody will ever ask you if it's real? When you wear the Sub somoene will eventually ask you.

Really, who cares?

I didn't want the Sub as my 1st Rolex becasue everyone has them, and I'm not somone who wants to show off, "hey look i have a Rolex".

And, your point?

[aleiberman]

I'm not insulting you or EVERY person that owns a sub. My point is....I didn't want the Sub as my 1st Rolex becasue everyone has them, and I'm not somone who wants to show off, "hey look i have a Rolex".

[xjeeunitx]

I just read this whole thing. I thought I might bring this thread back to life. I used to own Explorer II so I would know how the bracelets are on the watch. I do believe the bracelet on the PO is far more superior for many factors.

1. On the Sub, the inner clasps used to rub with the links inside of the band leaving wear marks. The PO doesn't have these clasps to leave extra wear marks.
2. The Sub has these clasps that wear/tear bend over in time.
3. The way the watch sits on your wrist is heck of a lot better than the way the Sub would because of these folding clasps.

I do acknowledge that the Sub uses screw pins to remove extra links. I do believe that is easier for watch owners to change whenever they wish.

Until the Sub upgrades its bracelet and gets rid of the "thin" clasps, I personally don't believe it is an upgrade from a PO. You could buy two POs for the price of one Sub. That just says something. Doesn't it?

[JBat]

Originally Posted by xjeeunitx

I just read this whole thing. I thought I might bring this thread back to life. I used to own Explorer II so I would know how the bracelets are on the watch. I do believe the bracelet on the PO is far more superior for many factors.

1. On the Sub, the inner clasps used to rub with the links inside of the band leaving wear marks. The PO doesn't have these clasps to leave extra wear marks.
2. The Sub has these clasps that wear/tear bend over in time.
3. The way the watch sits on your wrist is heck of a lot better than the way the Sub would because of these folding clasps.

I do acknowledge that the Sub uses screw pins to remove extra links. I do believe that is easier for watch owners to change whenever they wish.

Until the Sub upgrades its bracelet and gets rid of the "thin" clasps, I personally don't believe it is an upgrade from a PO. You could buy two POs for the price of one Sub. That just says something. Doesn't it?

I think what it says is that Rolex's are valued a lot more highly that Omega's. After all, either company can only charge what the market will bear. I love Omega watches, I really do, but they just don't scratch the itch like a Rolex does.

Say what you want about what that means, but it's my take on things. I will continue to wear my SMP (today, in fact) and enjoy it, but strapping on a Rolex is like coming home; it just feels right.

[JBat]

Originally Posted by Nicko

IMO not a good idea....



Really, who cares?


And, your point?

[rexsub]

PO and Sub SS are on par. I had both and swapped the Sub for the PO based on size weight. Then I swapped the PO for a Tag Grand Carerra Chrono and "game over"....

Big Watches Rule

[Gerardus]

Each their own, i love both brands!

[KarlFr]

Originally Posted by JBat

I think what it says is that Rolex's are valued a lot more highly that Omega's. After all, either company can only charge what the market will bear. I love Omega watches, I really do, but they just don't scratch the itch like a Rolex does.

Say what you want about what that means, but it's my take on things. I will continue to wear my SMP (today, in fact) and enjoy it, but strapping on a Rolex is like coming home; it just feels right.

Funny thing I see it completely opposite.. I reallllyy want to like the Rolex brand considering build quality, accuracy, history.... but in the end I just like the Omegas better because of looks and the way they fit the wrist.... sold 2 Rolex submariners now and just bought a 60's Omega 321 speedmaster and a 70's 300M Seamaster.... maybe I'm downgrading brandwise but to me the omegas appeal more.. (for now anyway)