Omega now as good as Rolex

[baldyspoon]

Had to laugh at an Omega Boutique today, I was just having a look when one of the sales person asks if I want any help. I explained I was just looking and as Omeaga are pricing there new PO's close to Rolex Subs I would rather go Rolex than Omega, at this point he said Omega were now regarded as good as Rolex and people think of them as equal to Rolex. I could have said I don't think thats the case but feel I would have lost the battle, I know Omega have got better but I don't think they have caught up Rolex yet what do you think.

[TimeToGo]

Every brand has their followers. I respect that...

[Welshwatchman]

What would you expect an Omega salesperson to say?

I like both and generally speaking there's little difference between the two in build quality and engineering, I reckon.

Rolex is still a stronger brand though.

[snowpea]

Omega quality on the new models are IMHO on par with Rolex. It's up to the buyer to decide if it is or not. I know I would love to own a Planet Ocean 9300 Chrono.

[snowpea]

Originally Posted by snowpea

Omega quality on the new models are IMHO on par with Rolex. It's up to the buyer to decide if it is or not. I know I would love to own a Planet Ocean 9300 Chrono.

Forgot to add pic

[Gharddog03]

I love both brands. But Rolex are the masters of marketing! And yes the POC 9300 is an awesome piece.

[snowpea]

Originally Posted by Gharddog03

I love both brands. But Rolex are the masters of marketing! And yes the POC 9300 is an awesome piece.

Congrats Genero, beautiful piece, looking to get one myself

[azguy]

Those PO's are great guys, love the pics

I love Omega bracelets and clasps

[caryyee]

I agree with the Omega salesperson, the new PO's with the inhouse 8500 movement is IMO a better watch in terms of movement, finishing, and quality. In terms of desirability, resale value and brand cachet, at that price point, no in my eyes (this is after all, primarily a Rolex forum!)

[mondodec]

It's always a tad dangerous in an Omega forum to insinuate that Rolex 2012 is "better" than Omega, because the first question that will be asked is, by what criteria do you wish to make the comparison :)

Historically, Rolex ate Omega's dust until the Swiss crisis in the late seventies. In fact Rolex wasnt even a real manufacture until the onset of the cal 15xx series and not fully a manufacture until it ditched the Zenith chronograph for one of its own making. The point I'm trying to make here is that Rolex, being a private trust and not a mega conglomerate like the SSIH group, weathered the storm a lot better and seized the opportunity to win market share, which it did brilliantly. IMO any marketing student should be made to study the post seventies Rolex marketing triumph because it changed perceptions about quality and brand. The opposite happened to Omega, which, under Hayek, underwent a twenty-year rehab and reconstruction program culminating firstly in the Daniels fix on modified 2892s and then the release of the calibre 8500.

Mind you, Rolex nearly did itself in with the earlier versions of the cal 3035, which had a litany of issues before they were rectified, but the cal 31xx series, now well over twenty years in existence, is the series that has carried Rolex to this point. Before that, IMO, as far as fast-beats are concerned, forget it.

So when one poses the question is Omega as good as Rolex or indeed is Rolex is as good as Omega in 2012 you need to establish some benchmarks for a comparative analysis and perhaps incorporate a bit of history.

From the movement perspective, using criteria such as accuracy and reliability, it has been argued by respected horologists the web over that the cal 3135 is about as good as the ETA 2892 and vice versa. While both have their own idiosyncrasies and imperfections, the general consensus is that both of them deserve a place in the horological hall of fame in the category of mass-produced high value movements.

Comparing the cal 3135 with the Omega cal 8500, from my perspective, and parachrom hairspring notwithstanding, the 3135 is an old movement, whereas the co-axial calibre 8500 is a twenty-first century movement that uses newish materials and horology in interesting ways. It is superbly finished and in its four-odd years of production has not had any serious modifications or tweaks and is proving to be a superb movement, meeting criteria for accuracy and reliability effortlessly. Is it better than a 3135, who knows? It doesn't have the issues with the set wheel post or rotor post that the 3135 has, but time is needed (a decade) to see if other design or manufacture issues emerge before anyone could declare the 8500 superior.

Arguably, Rolex bracelets still have an edge over Omega, but in terms of case construction and finish, both are excellent. In terms of case design, both are extremely conservative, Rolex especially so, but Omega's designs are mainly derivative of 1950's industrial design, although just a tad edgier.

If we are talking about brand perceptions, that's another story. Generally speaking, in emergent and mature Asian, Russian and some European markets, Rolex is perceived to be an older generation brand whereas Omega is perceived to have more cachet amongst the 25-39 demographic. In the US Rolex has perhaps more status as it does in one or two other Western countries. But shared perceptions of status are just individual hallucinations that have gone viral and are easily manipulated by peers and advertising, hardly the stuff to make an assessment on which brand is "as good" or "better"

So, in 2012, perhaps it is more useful to rise above the fierce commercial rivalry between these brands and see the futility of 'barracking' for one brand over another. It could be nearer to reality to suggest that both Rolex and Omega are demonstrably two of the best mass-production veblen brands currently operating out of Switzerland.

Cheers

Desmond

Originally Posted by baldyspoon

Had to laugh at an Omega Boutique today, I was just having a look when one of the sales person asks if I want any help. I explained I was just looking and as Omeaga are pricing there new PO's close to Rolex Subs I would rather go Rolex than Omega, at this point he said Omega were now regarded as good as Rolex and people think of them as equal to Rolex. I could have said I don't think thats the case but feel I would have lost the battle, I know Omega have got better but I don't think they have caught up Rolex yet what do you think.

[sarir97]

^^^ what he said!

[WJGESQ]

Originally Posted by baldyspoon

Had to laugh at an Omega Boutique today, I was just having a look when one of the sales person asks if I want any help. I explained I was just looking and as Omeaga are pricing there new PO's close to Rolex Subs I would rather go Rolex than Omega, at this point he said Omega were now regarded as good as Rolex and people think of them as equal to Rolex. I could have said I don't think thats the case but feel I would have lost the battle, I know Omega have got better but I don't think they have caught up Rolex yet what do you think.

I don't think there is any objective evidence or measurements of any kind suggesting Omega was ever behind.

[Whiteshark]

Well said Mondodec

[Kringkily]

To each their own but the new 8500 and 9300 is pushing the quality in a great direction.

[crew]

Originally Posted by timetogo

every brand has their followers. I respect that...

x2

[karmatp]

Originally Posted by caryyee

I agree with the Omega salesperson, the new PO's with the inhouse 8500 movement is IMO a better watch in terms of movement, finishing, and quality. In terms of desirability, resale value and brand cachet, at that price point, no in my eyes (this is after all, primarily a Rolex forum!)

X2


I walked into a Omega boutique with a Sub C on my wrist and I left thinking I paid way to much for my Sub when I could have purchased the new PO. IMHO, the new PO is just as good if not a better watch than the new Subs, for far less money. You can get a 8500 PO for less than $5000, compare that to a new Sub and Omega wins bang for your buck.

[warren G.]

Originally Posted by karmatp

X2


I walked into a Omega boutique with a Sub C on my wrist and I left thinking I paid way to much for my Sub when I could have purchased the new PO. IMHO, the new PO is just as good if not a better watch than the new Subs, for far less money. You can get a 8500 PO for less than $5000, compare that to a new Sub and Omega wins bang for your buck.

x10000 I agree...

[agsstructures]

Just picked up a new 8500 PO 42mm and I must say I did not expect the watch to be that nice. For under 5k I think its the best bargain out there. This is coming from someone who owned both a Sub-C and Daytona. Still love Rolex but the new PO is a beautiful piece.

[Boardman]

To each their own. I don't think one brand is better, it's just personal preference.

For what it's worth, A couple months ago I went to the Houston galleria with the intention of picking up an explorer II. I really like it, and still do, but when I went down the hall to omega I just fell in love with this.....




Part of that was me already loving the 8500 movement in this....





PS. I'm 40 yrs old :)

[mfserge]

I have owned a number of models from each brand and there is NO QUESTION in my mind that the new 8500 and 9300 watches are on par with Rolex. From the ceramic bezel, to the finishing, to the movement components, and movement finishing, the new Omega's are on par with Rolex! The new Rolex models have nicer clasps tho.

[htc8p]

i think they are both good brands. and have answers for each others watch.

omega is just as strong as rolex here in asia.

[FNFZ4]

Both are good watch brands. Its just a matter of taste. Many will say the PO does not look good......until they see them in person. And when you put a subc side by side, then you will appreciate the model... Then theres the price point....

[Matt93]

I was lucky enough the other day to try on a PO and a Sub C within a few mins of each other. I'm a huge Rolex fan, but given the choice on that day I would have picked the PO.

[subtona]

according to watch time june 2012, page 154:

Rolex (1st place position) bests omega with $46,960,000 in advertising vs

Omega (9 place position) spending a mere $9,800,000.

enough money might move casio to the top position

[kymwatchlog]

i love my speedies as much as i love my rollies ! :)


but bring a rolex and an omega to a pawnshop and you will know which brand commands better imo.

[caryyee]

The PO is just a little too big on my wrist, but the Aqua Terra's .... they are a mighty fine watch.

[Cru Jones]

the 8500 movement is top-notch. as for the rest? go with what makes you happy.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by mondodec

It's always a tad dangerous in an Omega forum to insinuate that Rolex 2012 is "better" than Omega, because the first question that will be asked is, by what criteria do you wish to make the comparison :)

Historically, Rolex ate Omega's dust until the Swiss crisis in the late seventies. In fact Rolex wasnt even a real manufacture until the onset of the cal 15xx series and not fully a manufacture until it ditched the Zenith chronograph for one of its own making. The point I'm trying to make here is that Rolex, being a private trust and not a mega conglomerate like the SSIH group, weathered the storm a lot better and seized the opportunity to win market share, which it did brilliantly. IMO any marketing student should be made to study the post seventies Rolex marketing triumph because it changed perceptions about quality and brand. The opposite happened to Omega, which, under Hayek, underwent a twenty-year rehab and reconstruction program culminating firstly in the Daniels fix on modified 2892s and then the release of the calibre 8500.

Mind you, Rolex nearly did itself in with the earlier versions of the cal 3035, which had a litany of issues before they were rectified, but the cal 31xx series, now well over twenty years in existence, is the series that has carried Rolex to this point. Before that, IMO, as far as fast-beats are concerned, forget it.

So when one poses the question is Omega as good as Rolex or indeed is Rolex is as good as Omega in 2012 you need to establish some benchmarks for a comparative analysis and perhaps incorporate a bit of history.

From the movement perspective, using criteria such as accuracy and reliability, it has been argued by respected horologists the web over that the cal 3135 is about as good as the ETA 2892 and vice versa. While both have their own idiosyncrasies and imperfections, the general consensus is that both of them deserve a place in the horological hall of fame in the category of mass-produced high value movements.

Comparing the cal 3135 with the Omega cal 8500, from my perspective, and parachrom hairspring notwithstanding, the 3135 is an old movement, whereas the co-axial calibre 8500 is a twenty-first century movement that uses newish materials and horology in interesting ways. It is superbly finished and in its four-odd years of production has not had any serious modifications or tweaks and is proving to be a superb movement, meeting criteria for accuracy and reliability effortlessly. Is it better than a 3135, who knows? It doesn't have the issues with the set wheel post or rotor post that the 3135 has, but time is needed (a decade) to see if other design or manufacture issues emerge before anyone could declare the 8500 superior.

Arguably, Rolex bracelets still have an edge over Omega, but in terms of case construction and finish, both are excellent. In terms of case design, both are extremely conservative, Rolex especially so, but Omega's designs are mainly derivative of 1950's industrial design, although just a tad edgier.

If we are talking about brand perceptions, that's another story. Generally speaking, in emergent and mature Asian, Russian and some European markets, Rolex is perceived to be an older generation brand whereas Omega is perceived to have more cachet amongst the 25-39 demographic. In the US Rolex has perhaps more status as it does in one or two other Western countries. But shared perceptions of status are just individual hallucinations that have gone viral and are easily manipulated by peers and advertising, hardly the stuff to make an assessment on which brand is "as good" or "better"

So, in 2012, perhaps it is more useful to rise above the fierce commercial rivalry between these brands and see the futility of 'barracking' for one brand over another. It could be nearer to reality to suggest that both Rolex and Omega are demonstrably two of the best mass-production veblen brands currently operating out of Switzerland.

Cheers

Desmond

Superb post, absolutely spot on!

[oceandweller]

Originally Posted by mondodec

It's always a tad dangerous in an Omega forum to insinuate that Rolex 2012 is "better" than Omega, because the first question that will be asked is, by what criteria do you wish to make the comparison :)

Historically, Rolex ate Omega's dust until the Swiss crisis in the late seventies. In fact Rolex wasnt even a real manufacture until the onset of the cal 15xx series and not fully a manufacture until it ditched the Zenith chronograph for one of its own making. The point I'm trying to make here is that Rolex, being a private trust and not a mega conglomerate like the SSIH group, weathered the storm a lot better and seized the opportunity to win market share, which it did brilliantly. IMO any marketing student should be made to study the post seventies Rolex marketing triumph because it changed perceptions about quality and brand. The opposite happened to Omega, which, under Hayek, underwent a twenty-year rehab and reconstruction program culminating firstly in the Daniels fix on modified 2892s and then the release of the calibre 8500.

Mind you, Rolex nearly did itself in with the earlier versions of the cal 3035, which had a litany of issues before they were rectified, but the cal 31xx series, now well over twenty years in existence, is the series that has carried Rolex to this point. Before that, IMO, as far as fast-beats are concerned, forget it.

So when one poses the question is Omega as good as Rolex or indeed is Rolex is as good as Omega in 2012 you need to establish some benchmarks for a comparative analysis and perhaps incorporate a bit of history.

From the movement perspective, using criteria such as accuracy and reliability, it has been argued by respected horologists the web over that the cal 3135 is about as good as the ETA 2892 and vice versa. While both have their own idiosyncrasies and imperfections, the general consensus is that both of them deserve a place in the horological hall of fame in the category of mass-produced high value movements.

Comparing the cal 3135 with the Omega cal 8500, from my perspective, and parachrom hairspring notwithstanding, the 3135 is an old movement, whereas the co-axial calibre 8500 is a twenty-first century movement that uses newish materials and horology in interesting ways. It is superbly finished and in its four-odd years of production has not had any serious modifications or tweaks and is proving to be a superb movement, meeting criteria for accuracy and reliability effortlessly. Is it better than a 3135, who knows? It doesn't have the issues with the set wheel post or rotor post that the 3135 has, but time is needed (a decade) to see if other design or manufacture issues emerge before anyone could declare the 8500 superior.

Arguably, Rolex bracelets still have an edge over Omega, but in terms of case construction and finish, both are excellent. In terms of case design, both are extremely conservative, Rolex especially so, but Omega's designs are mainly derivative of 1950's industrial design, although just a tad edgier.

If we are talking about brand perceptions, that's another story. Generally speaking, in emergent and mature Asian, Russian and some European markets, Rolex is perceived to be an older generation brand whereas Omega is perceived to have more cachet amongst the 25-39 demographic. In the US Rolex has perhaps more status as it does in one or two other Western countries. But shared perceptions of status are just individual hallucinations that have gone viral and are easily manipulated by peers and advertising, hardly the stuff to make an assessment on which brand is "as good" or "better"

So, in 2012, perhaps it is more useful to rise above the fierce commercial rivalry between these brands and see the futility of 'barracking' for one brand over another. It could be nearer to reality to suggest that both Rolex and Omega are demonstrably two of the best mass-production veblen brands currently operating out of Switzerland.

Cheers

Desmond

Desmond, very well-spoken and by the way generally, since when a Rolex movement is better than an Omega's. The only reason Rolex is so popular is because their marketing-strategy is second to none.

I am not against Rolex in any way, since I have a Sea-Dweller model reference 1665 with Rail Dial and this watch is now on my son's wrist. I wear the Omega Seamaster 120m of the early 70's. Why? Because the time-keeping is close to absolute: + - 2 secs per day, and I cannot see the word 'Chronometer' at all, on its dial.

Who timed the many Olympic Games since ages ago, and who has flown to the Moon? We know, who. When the British divers wanted a watch, Omega sent their watches directly from the production-line (300m), while Rolex had to modify the hands of their model reference 5514 (stand to be corrected), before delivering their Submariners.

Though we have to admit, both Rolex and Omega make great watches that will last for generations to come, provided they are well-maintained.

[ticktock 2]

Quality wise not much in it . The new Omegas IMHO may even have the edge.....but you have to hand it to Rolex. As marketing goes, they have spent decades building up their brand to be where it is. Unquestionably in their price bracket for brand image nothing compares. Omega is certainly on the up and with the new line of watches are making up ground very very quickly. So much so that when I recently fancied my first Rolex, I ended up buying a PO LM. I really wanted a Rolex but the new Seamasters just blew me away. Looks like this could be an expensive new hobby....