Why is the Submariner viewed as superior to the Seamaster?

[Mike B]

Originally Posted by Ed Rooney

Bond's Omega is a paid product placement. Ditto for Bourne. Both of those characters might as well be sewing the logos on their sleeves like golfers or Nascar drivers.

Very true. Except for the last two Bond movies. Ever notice in ALL the Pierce Brosnan movies, in almost every scene his blue SMP is almost ALWYAS visible. He almost always wears the SMP below his jacket/tux, etc. so it's always visible in almost every body shot scene.
However, in Craigs Bond movies, the PO, and SMP were a little less noticeable (in fact, I only remember a few good scenes where you can make out the watch, in Royale is when he gets thrown in the back seat of the Jag, and another closeup of the clasp when he is in his car and sticks his wrist with the needle). In Quantum, I don't even think we saw a close up of the PO, only when he went into the hotel room when he was opening the door, his watch was almost right in the frame. Craig always wears his watch tucked under his shirt, so most of the time the watch isn't even visible.
But, my point is that in the recent Bond movies, the Omega is a lot less noticeable than it was during the Brosnan era.

[DWdrummer]

Originally Posted by Mike B

Very true. Except for the last two Bond movies. Ever notice in ALL the Pierce Brosnan movies, in almost every scene his blue SMP is almost ALWYAS visible. He almost always wears the SMP below his jacket/tux, etc. so it's always visible in almost every body shot scene.
However, in Craigs Bond movies, the PO, and SMP were a little less noticeable (in fact, I only remember a few good scenes where you can make out the watch, in Royale is when he gets thrown in the back seat of the Jag, and another closeup of the clasp when he is in his car and sticks his wrist with the needle). In Quantum, I don't even think we saw a close up of the PO, only when he went into the hotel room when he was opening the door, his watch was almost right in the frame. Craig always wears his watch tucked under his shirt, so most of the time the watch isn't even visible.
But, my point is that in the recent Bond movies, the Omega is a lot less noticeable than it was during the Brosnan era.

Good points and very true indeed. They are much more subtle now, yet still there just the same. Interesting and cool at the same time!

[icnbne]

Originally Posted by Mike B

Very true. Except for the last two Bond movies. Ever notice in ALL the Pierce Brosnan movies, in almost every scene his blue SMP is almost ALWYAS visible. He almost always wears the SMP below his jacket/tux, etc. so it's always visible in almost every body shot scene.
However, in Craigs Bond movies, the PO, and SMP were a little less noticeable (in fact, I only remember a few good scenes where you can make out the watch, in Royale is when he gets thrown in the back seat of the Jag, and another closeup of the clasp when he is in his car and sticks his wrist with the needle). In Quantum, I don't even think we saw a close up of the PO, only when he went into the hotel room when he was opening the door, his watch was almost right in the frame. Craig always wears his watch tucked under his shirt, so most of the time the watch isn't even visible.
But, my point is that in the recent Bond movies, the Omega is a lot less noticeable than it was during the Brosnan era.

Everyone knows Craig is a Rolex man

[clew84]

Originally Posted by DWdrummer

Good points and very true indeed. They are much more subtle now, yet still there just the same. Interesting and cool at the same time!

Except for Casino Royale where the girl says, "Nice watch. Rolex?" Craig replies, "Omega". That line felt very forced.

[inLine4]

I bought both so I can't fight myself!

[multimedia]

Originally Posted by clew84

Except for Casino Royale where the girl says, "Nice watch. Rolex?" Craig replies, "Omega". That line felt very forced.

Perhaps it was difficult for Mr. Craig to deliver that one...?

Cheers,
Joe

[improviz]

Originally Posted by Ed Rooney

Bond's Omega is a paid product placement. Ditto for Bourne. Both of those characters might as well be sewing the logos on their sleeves like golfers or Nascar drivers.

I'm sorry, I obviously took your statement about Bond and Steve McQueen wearing Rolexes as making the case for purchasing a Rolex over an Omega as a joke, when it obviously wasn't: I guess hadn't realized that Bond and McQueen were horologists...anyway, my point, while made in the spirit of levity, was that this line of argument kind of ignores the rather glaringly obvious fact that plenty of celebs who can afford any watch they want wear watches other than Rolex, including (gasp) Tag Heuer and (double gasp) Omega, Breitling, Panerai, etc. on the set and off, and the implications of this for said argument should be apparent...

Anyway, I'll try to avoid subtlety in the future. Have a nice day.

[AAMD11]

Originally Posted by warrior

DW, you hit this right on the head. I've said this in some of my previous posts. In Asia, for example, watches are a much bigger deal to a higher percentage of people-- in comparison to the U.S.


Omega is marketed very heavily in Asia and very little ( in comparison to Rolex) in the States. Omega corporate considers the U.S. a secondary market. This is why most Asians have heard of Omega, whereas many in the U.S. haven't.

Tag and Rolex are the most heavily marketed in the U.S. Hence, the brand name recognition for these brands are higher here.

That is very true and funny enough so is RADO, when I went to Asia, Japan, China, and especially India RADO and OMEGA are HUGE and much more recognized than Rolex.

[DWdrummer]

Originally Posted by multimedia

Perhaps it was difficult for Mr. Craig to deliver that one...?

Cheers,
Joe

True, Craig is a huge Rolex collector and connoisseur.
Though if you watch the whole verbal joust he was setting her straight too.
She talked down to him and he corrected her, then she mentioned his watch.

Its just a movie at any rate. I like Rolex and Omega and always have. Who doesn't is the real question? I have would have one of every model both companies made if I could afford to do so. Im serious too!

[JBat]

Originally Posted by clew84

Except for Casino Royale where the girl says, "Nice watch. Rolex?" Craig replies, "Omega". That line felt very forced.

O-Mee-Ga.

[DerekS]

Check out the new bracelet design....Changes the whole game :)

[Starwalker]

I dont think its is better, if Omega charged 5K for the seamaster, ppl would pay for it.

[icnbne]

Originally Posted by kfsal

I dont think its is better, if Omega charged 5K for the seamaster, ppl would pay for it.

shhh..
you dont want any omega execs reading that..

[openwheelracing]

geez, James Bond wears Omega. Get over it already!!!! "Rolex? Omeega" Suck it who cares!!! Stop making us Rolex owner sound so bitter....

Craig wear Rolex more often than Omega. Why not? Omega doesn't make a Coke GMT or Green bezel, so what other choice does Craig have? LOL

[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.

[icnbne]

Originally Posted by openwheelracing

geez, James Bond wears Omega. Get over it already!!!! "Rolex? Omeega" Suck it who cares!!! Stop making us Rolex owner sound so bitter....

Craig wear Rolex more often than Omega. Why not? Omega doesn't make a Coke GMT or Green bezel, so what other choice does Craig have? LOL

this kind of posts usually mean its time for the thread to close

[SteveK]

to me personally the sub is more elegant and refined. Omegas are great watches but they are nothing special. not saying a sub is worth $6K + because believe me it's not, but Omegas are overvalued as well by 2/3 of their msrp. I think it also comes down to availability, omega parts are easy and cheap to come by, Rolex not so much, which I guess creates this mystique and assists in creating this legendary reputation. Im willing to bet if the SMP said Rolex on it and the Sub said OMEGA, the SMP would be the popular choice, if that logic is faulty then everyone would just buy an Invicta with an ETA movement in it and be satisfied

[jmsrolls]

Originally Posted by DerekS

Check out the new bracelet design....Changes the whole game :)

Nope!

Both are good watches (not great) but objectively, the SMP still trumps the Sub.

Fr. John†

[DWdrummer]

Originally Posted by SteveK

to me personally the sub is more elegant and refined. Omegas are great watches but they are nothing special. not saying a sub is worth $6K + because believe me it's not, but Omegas are overvalued as well by 2/3 of their msrp. I think it also comes down to availability, omega parts are easy and cheap to come by, Rolex not so much, which I guess creates this mystique and assists in creating this legendary reputation. Im willing to bet if the SMP said Rolex on it and the Sub said OMEGA, the SMP would be the popular choice, if that logic is faulty then everyone would just buy an Invicta with an ETA movement in it and be satisfied

The problem with ALL expensive items is that logic has nothing to do with any of it. I mean if logic were driving us, we would spend about $50 on a quartz watch and be done with it all.

Marketing IS a huge deal in everything and Rolex has THE name. Having owned and currently owning two Rolex watches and one Omega SMP, I see no objective difference between them myself.

Rolex and Omega, BOTH high grade stainless steel, I know Rolex uses 904 which is a debate all its own.

BOTH, COSC certified Chronometer grade Swiss movements.
BOTH, obscene water resistance ratings

Its like BMW and Mercedes to me. I prefer Benz but would be every bit as happy with the BMW on any given day.

Omega is raising prices, closing dealers and trying to position themselves higher in the minds of consumers in the US it seems. All good moves by Omega.

Some people are very happy with their Invicta and call it a day. I know a man who has enough assets and money to buy ANY watch he wants. Including AP or a Patek and not blink at the price on the tag. He wears Invicta watches when he does wear a watch and an old gold Omega Seamaster that was his fathers. Different strokes for different folks.

Im very happy to be fortunate enough to afford either a Rolex or an Omega even pre owned. For most of my life I was simply was not able to purchase such fine things. Im thankful every day I look down at my wrist and see those watches on MY arm, instead of admiring from afar.

[icnbne]

Originally Posted by DWdrummer

Im very happy to be fortunate enough to afford either a Rolex or an Omega even pre owned. For most of my life I was simply was not able to purchase such fine things. Im thankful every day I look down at my wrist and see those watches on MY arm, instead of admiring from afar.

you earned you watch, and you deserve it 100%, good on you mate

[DWdrummer]

Originally Posted by children

you earned you watch, and you deserve it 100%, good on you mate

Thank you. It took me almost 15 years to get my first Rolex a GMT II and about two months later I got my first Omega, which was the Omega I drooled over in High School. Good things to those who wait!

I still cant believe it at times. Its like a dream.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by DWdrummer

The problem with ALL expensive items is that logic has nothing to do with any of it. I mean if logic were driving us, we would spend about $50 on a quartz watch and be done with it all.

Marketing IS a huge deal in everything and Rolex has THE name. Having owned and currently owning two Rolex watches and one Omega SMP, I see no objective difference between them myself.

Rolex and Omega, BOTH high grade stainless steel, I know Rolex uses 904 which is a debate all its own.

BOTH, COSC certified Chronometer grade Swiss movements.
BOTH, obscene water resistance ratings

Its like BMW and Mercedes to me. I prefer Benz but would be every bit as happy with the BMW on any given day.

Omega is raising prices, closing dealers and trying to position themselves higher in the minds of consumers in the US it seems. All good moves by Omega.

Some people are very happy with their Invicta and call it a day. I know a man who has enough assets and money to buy ANY watch he wants. Including AP or a Patek and not blink at the price on the tag. He wears Invicta watches when he does wear a watch and an old gold Omega Seamaster that was his fathers. Different strokes for different folks.

Im very happy to be fortunate enough to afford either a Rolex or an Omega even pre owned. For most of my life I was simply was not able to purchase such fine things. Im thankful every day I look down at my wrist and see those watches on MY arm, instead of admiring from afar.

That is a great post.

[Denver Dick]

I consider both Rolex and Omega outstanding luxury watches. Frankly, I own what I consider to be a truly classic Rolex (16013) and find nothing in the present line of Rolex watches, except the Explorer, that I would buy at Rolex prices. Then, while considering the Explorer, I discovered the Omega Railmaster. It looks a little better (IMHO) than the Explorer and is far less expensive.

All the WIS guys in the world can argue different, but here is my classic Rolex and nothing in the present Rolex line of products looks better . . . to me. I'm on the hunt for more Omegas before the MSRPs go up and discounts go down . . . or even away . . . in Omega's quest to be just another Rolex. Again, just my

[vh_bu98]

How about the fact that the Seamaster comes with a quartz movement as an option and the Submariner doesn't?

Some people find that the quartz movement is not on the same level as the automatic, so a person may be wearing the less expensive version of the Seamaster.

[Denver Dick]

Originally Posted by vh_bu98

How about the fact that the Seamaster comes with a quartz movement as an option and the Submariner doesn't?

Some people find that the quartz movement is not on the same level as the automatic, so a person may be wearing the less expensive version of the Seamaster.

One glance at the second hand will make the quartz movement obvious.

I don't know, but to me placing an Omega case, dial, hands, cyrstal and bracelet around a quartz movement is like, as old cowboys would say, "putting a $50 saddle and $5 horse." And, as for those folks wearing quartz Seamasters, well, as the preacher would say during his sermon, "Y'all know who you are . . . repent!" Just my

[pz93c]

I disagree.

I like the fact is will run, accurately, whether I wear it or not. Been pondering a quartz 36mm RM for a while now.

Add that it is cheaper than it's mechanical equivalent..... especially on the secondary market and I'm in.

[DWdrummer]

Originally Posted by Denver Dick

I consider both Rolex and Omega outstanding luxury watches. Frankly, I own what I consider to be a truly classic Rolex (16013) and find nothing in the present line of Rolex watches, except the Explorer, that I would buy at Rolex prices. Then, while considering the Explorer, I discovered the Omega Railmaster. It looks a little better (IMHO) than the Explorer and is far less expensive.

All the WIS guys in the world can argue different, but here is my classic Rolex and nothing in the present Rolex line of products looks better . . . to me. I'm on the hunt for more Omegas before the MSRPs go up and discounts go down . . . or even away . . . in Omega's quest to be just another Rolex. Again, just my

That is one beautiful and quintessential Rolex right there. That IS Rolex to many people, I think of that watch EXACTLY right there when I think of Rolex. Its the first thing that pops into my head. The second is the Submariner of course.

I think older Datejust represent and incredible value.

Nothing wrong with owning both!

[Denver Dick]

Originally Posted by pz93c

I disagree.

I like the fact is will run, accurately, whether I wear it or not. Been pondering a quartz 36mm RM for a while now.

Add that it is cheaper than it's mechanical equivalent..... especially on the secondary market and I'm in.

Don't get me wrong, I admire quartz watches and the technology that goes into them. I have two myself, both Seiko brand. They're nice watches and accurate as all get out. My wife wears a Raymond Weil quartz because she doesn't move her arm around enough during the 11 or so hours she wears a watch to keep an automatic powered up. In fact, I keep one of my quartz watches on my dresser so I can quickly check the accuracy of my Rolex and Omega automatics without having to sign on to www.time.gov.

Now, that said, I still don't see surrounding a $50 movement in luxury. You can get a very good looking Seiko quartz watch for less than $400, if it you're just looking for accuracy and don't want it to wind down. As was told to me by an old cowboy once (but I didn't write it correctly above), "Boy, don't be puttin' no $50 saddle on that damn $5 horse." Oh, by the way, I don't believe Omega makes the Railmaster in a quartz version, they're all automatic chronometers. FWIW

Originally Posted by DWdrummer

That is one beautiful and quintessential Rolex right there. That IS Rolex to many people, I think of that watch EXACTLY right there when I think of Rolex. Its the first thing that pops into my head. The second is the Submariner of course.

I think older Datejust represent and incredible value.

Nothing wrong with owning both!

Exactly! I've had this one for 23 years. It was completely refurbished at the RSC in PA back in November, including a complete servicing as well as new acrylic crystal, dial, all three hands, and Jubilee bracelet (now that was some $$$). I have it on right now . . . it's like when I picked it up back in February 1987.

[Mockingbird]

It all has to do with brand image, even if the SMP was a thousand times better than the sub, many people would still view the sub as better because of the power of the Rolex word.

[dkpw]

Why is the Submariner viewed as superior to the Seamaster?

Coz it's better...