Is a Submariner an upgrade from a PO?

[warrior]

Nothing wrong being a contrarian

Originally Posted by KarlFr

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)

[JBat]

Originally Posted by KarlFr

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)

Fair enough. I love Omega's myself, and would love to acquire a 321 like you did. I love the vintage Omega's.

When it comes to pricing, though, I think I'm right on. Rolex charges what it charges because people are willing to pay it. As good as the SMP's and PO's are, can you really see Omega charging $6K for one? They'd go out of business.

[KarlFr]

I think the watch design by Omegas are is great, wish the 5513 would be 42mm and have that bevelled case like the speedmaster/300Mseamaster..
Or the new rolex sub coming out with excellent lume, devil-tail hands, 600m waterproof and co-axial like the PO

but Omega choosed a different marketing route long ago with not going mainly inhouse movements like Rolex and thus lowering the price range. Omega probably sold more watches that way but could have been right up there with AP or Rolex if they wanted to I blame it all on the owner.. Swatch group

[everose]

IT all depends on how you define "upgrade"???

Feature content-Omega
Quality of Materials-Rolex
Exclusivity....Maybe equal
Retained Value-Rolex
Brand recognition-Rolex
Rolex is one of ONLY 3 Full Line Manufacturers
Sean and Roger ()Rolex v Pierce and Daniel (Omega)
Omega has the more modern design/styling.
Rolex more traditional/classic.

You are right to feel both in your hands....for me that is a more important indication of quality/desirability than anything else.

But... undoubtedly both are fine watches.

I'm sorry,........but the Ploprof should NEVER be considered comparable to SDDS!!!!!!
Look at the design,engineering and specs of both.....they are not to compare,but only to CONTRAST!!

[mannyb]

Originally Posted by 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"....

I too like the TAG Grand Carerra line. I have and Omega Speedmaster Classic and a DJ, but the Grand Carerra line has been calling me...

[Blueoctopus007]

Try a Rolex Sea Dweller - it ticks all your boxes - solid like a tank.

[jmsrolls]

Originally Posted by everose

I'm sorry,........but the Ploprof should NEVER be considered comparable to SDDS!!!!!!
Look at the design,engineering and specs of both.....they are not to compare,but only to CONTRAST!!

I agree. There is no comparison between the PloProf and the SDDS.

The ProProf is a true diver's watch.

Fr. John†

[iwantagmt]

Originally Posted by jmsrolls

I agree. There is no comparison between the PloProf and the SDDS.

The ProProf is a true diver's watch.

Fr. John†

Agree!

[mascot]

Originally Posted by skip73

G'day Omega owners,

I have a dilemma in which you can hopefully help me out with. I have owned an Omega Seamaster Pro, Seamaster Pro Chrono, a Breitling and an Oris and 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!

So my dilemma is: As watch enthusiasts, would you considered it an upgrade if I sold my Omega PO and bought a Rolex Submariner LV or is it just and expensive side step.

I have scoured the discussion forums on this site and others looking for a comparison but the closest I have found is the PO vs the Seadweller (out of my price range) so I am curious about the direct comparison.

I am not the kind of bloke that considers a Rolex a status symbol so take brand recognition out of the equation if you can, I am more interested in terms of the quality and durability of the watch.

In terms of use, I can only afford one watch at a time (at this stage) so I would wear it as an everyday watch. I would wear it to work, at home, when I go swimming (but not diving) and tearing down a hill on my mouton bike! So the watch would cop a bit of a hiding :-)

The PO is holding up pretty well although I have scratched the AR coating on the crystal and since had it replaced.

Your opinions are welcome!

I think you should go for the LV, its very expensive but the feeling of having a real Manufactura on your wrist I think its worth it. That will be my next watch and I think very soon

GL!

[Tools]

Omega was making quality timepieces before Rolex made it's first watch....

But, ..... Omega is now part of the cost conscious Swatch group... Bracelet pins are a fraction of the diameter of Rolex screws... Rolex uses full balance bridges in their movements and has had free sprung balances for years... Omega is just starting to put these things on their ground-up Co-axials just to make them live as long as advertised..

Rolex uses 31 functional jewels and an additional half dozen at other wear points....... Omega uses the standard 27..

Rolex uses their own date change mechanism making a date change or hour change simple at any time of the day or night... Omega has the basic gear and pinion engagement making them fragile from 8 pm to 2 am.

The Omega clasp is nicely machined, but relies on a paperclip (OK, a couple of stainless wires) to capture a screw head - they can be forced open and don't work well if they get gummed up..

If you are an Omega fan..be one... I have a half dozen and I love every one...I am a fan..... But trying to compare watch to watch is fruitless..

Swatch has decided to try to bring back Omega into the Luxury category to compete with Rolex....... I say good for them... they're on the right track....

Let's wait a few years and see............

[Mystro]

I own both. I bought a new Serti Submariner 12 years ago and I love the watch dearly because it is still different looking from the rest of the Sub/SD crowd. In my rural area, there is not a lot of nice watches walking around but the ones I see are always a steel Sub. That being said,...The new PO is a better watch IMO and is a steal at the current pricing. My Planet Ocean is currently keeping + or - 0 zero seconds in 3 weeks and counting. The Coaxial movement is amazing. I also like the refreshing yet beautiful design over the classical and overly copied design of the Submariner/SeaDweller. The Omega is also offered in a choice of sizes which I find refreshing from the "Take it or leave it" mentality of Rolex. Yea once you get over "Its a Rolex" crap and every idiot asked you "How much it cost?" You will be left with the question. Why does the Rolex really cost more? Its not built any better. IMO It cost more cause Rolex says so and at this point of my life, I need a better answer than that. Rolex is a safe choice and a good choice if you are buying into the watch design and not into the name.
To answer your original question. Rolex is NOT better than Omega. Both are equally good depending on the look you are after.

[A.I.]

I've been a lurker both here and another well known UK Rolex forum for over a year now. This is the approximate time it has taken me to siphon away the £££'s for my first Rolex - a GMTIIc. Currently I wear an Omega (Co-Axle 41mm Automatic) which I am very keen on. I really like the heavier weight, overall feel and comfort factors apart from the plainly good looks the watch clearly has.

I had a hankering a few months ago for a Breitling but having tried one on at an AD I instantly realised I was not a fan - too blingy, too light, too..............well you know.

So today I went along to local Rolex AD to try on the GMTIIc. To say I'm gutted is an understatement. Clearly in my mind I had this mental image that the watch would be better in all respects than my current Omega - and I eventually left half an hour later downhearted with my money intact!

The ceramic dial and dial movement were absolutely georgeous - wonderful feel. The maxi dial was mint. The newly designed strap - very tidy.........................but the size and weight of the watch, wristfeel etc. was................well no where near the Omega - in my humble opinion.

I work in sales so value for money comes very high in my list of expectation and the GMTIIc missed the mark. I guess the marketing got to me but the reality has now hit home.

It has to be a PO!

Just my opinion FWIW.

[bay019885]

Cheers skip73 - reading all the posts I would comment that IMO the PO wins. Personally, fine engineering wins out over brand, as long as the build quality is also there. Recently, picked up a Ball Master II diver (yes I am an avid diver) and although this watch has lower brand recognition, the build quality, clasp, links, bracelet, 53 tritium tubes are incredible for the price - besides would I actually take a $3-5k watch underwater? Same reason I dive with a point and shoot and leave my full frame dslr on land. My next watch based on these posts will be a PO. Cheers!

[Thai]

Originally Posted by donq

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.

You better read up on the Caliber 8500 from Omega...a simple Googling will open your eyes! There is very little question about its durability.

Originally Posted by improviz

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.

Actually, you may want to read this article: http://www.chronometrie.com/rolex3135/rolex3135.html

Nor is it all that durable: http://people.timezone.com/mdisher/a...135/3135_1.htm

And yes, the new Caliber 8500 from Omega has the balance bridge along with other significant improvements not seen on a Rolex.

I do agree that the Sub is an icon. Personally, i would pick it (or SD) over the Omega PO for that very reason. (I am a Rolex and Omega fan.) My problem with Omega is that they change style (and direction of design) way too often. Hopefully, with Swatch moving Omega to Tier 1, Omega design will be more consistent from generation to generation. I do love my Hour Vision.

However, when talking about movements, Rolex ain't that great as people are led to believe.

[JBat]

Originally Posted by bay019885

Cheers skip73 - reading all the posts I would comment that IMO the PO wins. Personally, fine engineering wins out over brand, as long as the build quality is also there. Recently, picked up a Ball Master II diver (yes I am an avid diver) and although this watch has lower brand recognition, the build quality, clasp, links, bracelet, 53 tritium tubes are incredible for the price - besides would I actually take a $3-5k watch underwater? Same reason I dive with a point and shoot and leave my full frame dslr on land. My next watch based on these posts will be a PO. Cheers!

Why not? That's exactly what it's designed for. I have no qualms whatsoever about taking my fine mechanicals underwater.

[JBat]

Originally Posted by Thai

You better read up on the Caliber 8500 from Omega...a simple Googling will open your eyes! There is very little question about its durability.

Since the movement isn't that old, it's the long term durability that has yet to be established, and that's just fact. Doesn't mean it won't, it just hasn't yet.

Actually, you may want to read this article: http://www.chronometrie.com/rolex3135/rolex3135.html

Nor is it all that durable: http://people.timezone.com/mdisher/a...135/3135_1.htm

And yes, the new Caliber 8500 from Omega has the balance bridge along with other significant improvements not seen on a Rolex.

I do agree that the Sub is an icon. Personally, i would pick it (or SD) over the Omega PO for that very reason. (I am a Rolex and Omega fan.) My problem with Omega is that they change style (and direction of design) way too often. Hopefully, with Swatch moving Omega to Tier 1, Omega design will be more consistent from generation to generation. I do love my Hour Vision.

However, when talking about movements, Rolex ain't that great as people are led to believe.

50+ years of history refutes that claim.

[Mystro]

Yea but Omega is a older watch company...

[Thai]

Originally Posted by JBat

Since the movement isn't that old, it's the long term durability that has yet to be established, and that's just fact. Doesn't mean it won't, it just hasn't yet.

50+ years of history refutes that claim.

Although it is not old yet, one only needs to read about it to understand that Omega did not cut corners when designing/building it. The only "new" thing is the Coaxial...and that design has been in existence since the mid-1970's. The caliber 8500 is just as robust (if not more, according to Omega) than the ETA2892 with none of its weaknesses.

50 years of history is great and all...has the 3135 been in existence that long?! Regardless of heritage, the 3135 (and other Rolex movements) still has at least one DESIGN flaw that is WIDELY recognized by watchmakers as a significant flaw. And as noted above, not everyone who is in the "know" agree that the Rolex movement is superior to even the ETA base movement! That's just facts. Read the conclusion of the first linked article.

[JBat]

No, the 3135 has been around for about 20 years, as I referenced in the other Sub/PO thread in this forum. That's twenty distinguished, trouble-free years.

And I didn't say the 8500 isn't robust, only that it hasn't been around that long. To claim any movement has long-term durability without the history to back it up is folly.

[JBat]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Yea but Omega is a older watch company...

And Omega is part of the Swatch Group... What's your point?

[JBat]

Oh,and Thai, I've read that article before. Maybe those two point mentioned are flaws from a technical standpoint, but have they really manifested themselves as real-world issues? I think not. Maintain the watch as you should and you'll be fine. There's a lot of old 3135's out there running just fine.

[Thai]

Originally Posted by JBat

Oh,and Thai, I've read that article before. Maybe those two point mentioned are flaws from a technical standpoint, but have they really manifested themselves as real-world issues? I think not. Maintain the watch as you should and you'll be fine. There's a lot of old 3135's out there running just fine.

Well, they are technical/design issues that many other movements (e.g. 8500) do not have. From the watchmaker's article, these issues could indeed manifest itself (possibly profoundly!) if one were to go longer than the recommended service intervals. Why have that risk/possibility, right?

[JBat]

Originally Posted by Thai

Well, they are technical/design issues that many other movements (e.g. 8500) do not have. From the watchmaker's article, these issues could indeed manifest itself (possibly profoundly!) if one were to go longer than the recommended service intervals. Why have that risk/possibility, right?

First, I think every movement has things about it that are less than ideal. Second, you cited one article. I think many more could be found that speak to the robustness of the 3135. What would happen if you exceeded the service interval of an 8500? Nobody knows yet. It think there's inherent risk in exceeding those intervals for any movement. Good maintenace is good practice.

Either way, you are preaching to the choir to a certain extent, because I love Omega's and Rolex's. Both companies make outstanding pieces.

[Welshwatchman]

No more jibes, chaps.

[Thai]

Originally Posted by JBat

Second, you cited one article. I think many more could be found that speak to the robustness of the 3135.

Either way, you are preaching to the choir to a certain extent, because I love Omega's and Rolex's. Both companies make outstanding pieces.

Actually, TWO articles. From my brief searching, all the articles written by watchmakers or people in the "know" about Rolex movements have not been glowing. However, i see "testimonials" on forums about its robustness and durability. Yet, when you read the articles, you don't get the same solid feeling from the writers. So, who does one believe is the big question i guess.

[Thai]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

No more jibes, chaps.

Just friendly debate.

[matt.wu]

Fun thread to read through. I've gone over this "Omega vs. Rolex" SO many times in my head it's ridiculous. I'm an engineer, so the "follow your heart" argument makes no sense to me. There NEEDS to be a logical explanation for why I should choose one watch over the other.

But there isn't.

I'm thoroughly convinced, from a side-by-side standpoint, that Omega provides better value for your dollar. I mean, a used PO for $1800 is a STEAL on a watch of that quality.

But I still desperately want a Rolex sub or SD, despite the fact that I really think the bracelet is crap (had a 14060M). I just appreciate the history behind the watch.

At the same time, I love Kobold watches as well - so that goes to show you that there really is no logic in it at all. Still, it's nice to read a thread that showcases the thought process that many are going through.

[Thai]

Originally Posted by JBat

No, the 3135 has been around for about 20 years, as I referenced in the other Sub/PO thread in this forum. That's twenty distinguished, trouble-free years.

Hehehe...well, the 2892 has been in existence much longer (according to article above)...and the Coaxial has been in existence for over 35 years now. So, there goes your argument!

[JBat]

Originally Posted by Thai

Hehehe...well, the 2892 has been in existence much longer (according to article above)...and the Coaxial has been in existence for over 35 years now. So, there goes your argument!

Umm, Omega introduced the caliber 2500 in 1999...just about 11 years. The 8500 has been around for about 3 years. The fact that the concept of a coaxial movement has been around for 35 years is not the same thing as touting the durability of a mass-produced movement that's been in existence for 11 years. The discussion revolves around Omega co-axial movements.

Looks like I'm back in the game.

[Thai]

Originally Posted by JBat

Umm, Omega introduced the caliber 2500 in 1999...just about 11 years. The 8500 has been around for about 3 years. The fact that the concept of a coaxial movement has been around for 35 years is not the same thing as touting the durability of a mass-produced movement that's been in existence for 11 years. The discussion revolves around Omega co-axial movements.

Looks like I'm back in the game.

Yup, keep waiting for the 8500 to screw up or have design flaws like the 3135...it ain't happening! I hope that i won't ever read a watchmaker's article preferring 2892 over the 8500...that would just be so insulting!