Omega vs Rolex "rivalry". Never understood it.

[Lentuo]

Originally Posted by DasKptl

I've heard that in the 1960s, Omega and Rolex had an equal status--similar prices and similar brand prestiges. Omega was Elvis' favorite watch brand.

But now, Rolex dominates.

Rolex re-launched Tudor in the early 2010s. Tudor is now suddenly hot, with distribution points all over the world. Tudor has become a formidable rival to Omega, in that just-below-Rolex category. Omega now needs to face Tudor first, before it will ever attempt to challenge Rolex.

(Has this been an outcome of Rolex/Tudor's intentional strategy? I don't know. It is just what is happening right now.)

El 1 de mayo omega sube precios y deja atras a tudor

[JP.]

Originally Posted by Moggo

Let’s not kid ourselves though, if the value didn’t fall off an Omega the minute the cash register rang we would be all over them. Especially if they were worth double after buying like Rolex.

Even though I certainly don’t buy for investment I don’t like the idea of losing hundreds/thousands the minute I leave the store.

I have a Seamaster and it’s a lovely watch but you need to buy them right to make sense in my opinion.

Yes... the "value" arguments that favor Omega are weird. Steel sports Rolex is the only watch that actually holds its value... or even increases it in the long run. Maybe this applies to some Patek models too. NOTHING is better value than that.

Omegas and Breitlings offer excellent value too... but only when bought preowned after depreciation, imho.

[bobernet]

Originally Posted by vicsdca

I own both and for me Rolex and Omega are pretty much equal.

So, just as an example, you’ve held a Speedmaster and a Daytona and said, “yeah, they’re pretty equal?” I find that really shocking.

I sold my Speedmaster after it sat in a watch box for 3 or 4 years mostly unworn. I’d say the quality, finish, etc difference between the two is dramatic.

I don’t hate Omega at all, but they had devolved into a brand sticking outsourced ETA movements into their cases like so many other lower-mid tier Swiss brands. They bought the escapement from George Daniels, and had ETA build new movements around them with the Omega logo.

I’m sure they want to catch Rolex from a competitive perspective, but the market speaks every day, and it’s not even close.

[997]

Originally Posted by JP.

I'm well aware of the "traditions" of the Speedmaster... I've been into the watch scene for almost 20 years. Almost 10 years professionally. There must be 1000 threads about the "traditions" of the Daytona and the Speedmaster.

I'm not "fixated" on the price. But once again... the point of this whole thread was the price. I find it amusing that Omegas are seen as a direct rival to watches that costs so much more. There's nothing wrong about it... people keep creating strange straw man arguments from my text... I just wanted to discuss this subject with this particular price element in mind. i.e bring a little bit different "approach" on the table.

Grand Seikos are amazing watches for real "watch guys". I actually compared GS to my Ebel BTR (that I wrote about here). I'm sure someone gets offended of this article, too. :D
https://luxurywatches635.wordpress.c...r-chronograph/

Porsche is a direct rival to both Ferrari & Lamborghini, and it is much much cheeper. How do people compare 911s to their rivals in Ferrari and Lambo?

Porsche is able to compete with these two with great performance and price point. Would you still be interested in a 911 if it cost the same as a 488/Huracan/McLaren? I would (at least when talking about top models i.e. RS) Some might say that I'd much rather get a USED 488 for 200k than a NEW 911 turboS, at least people can recognize a Ferrari! no one would know what a turboS is unless you really cared about Porsches.

You can apply the same logic when comparing Omega and Rolex, I'm not gonna repeat what you and other members have said about the history/built quality of Speedmasters and Seamsters, but if Omega decided to sell the Moonwatch for 12k would you still be interested? I wouldn't.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by JP.

Omegas and Breitlings offer excellent value too... but only when bought preowned after depreciation, imho.

[173rdabn]

Good grief. Folks like different things for different reasons that have nothing to do with price and perceived value. Your opinion is, after all, only an opinion.

[crazymcmichael]

I feel Rolex is a step above Omega but i love both brands

[mortum]

Here is how I look at it. Each watch brand's emotional appeal is comprised of a combination of the following:

- Price
- Design
- Features
- Reliability
- Innovation
- History

The importance and weight of each of the above aspects is purely subjective so, comparing one watch brand to another is very personal. That said however, looking at the diagram below (not sure how current it is), I feel like any potential corporate influence and control over a brand slightly diminishes said brand's appeal in my view. Which is why Rolex, Patek and AP are on top of my list.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by bobernet

So, just as an example, you’ve held a Speedmaster and a Daytona and said, “yeah, they’re pretty equal?” I find that really shocking.

I sold my Speedmaster after it sat in a watch box for 3 or 4 years mostly unworn. I’d say the quality, finish, etc difference between the two is dramatic.

I don’t hate Omega at all, but they had devolved into a brand sticking outsourced ETA movements into their cases like so many other lower-mid tier Swiss brands. They bought the escapement from George Daniels, and had ETA build new movements around them with the Omega logo.

I’m sure they want to catch Rolex from a competitive perspective, but the market speaks every day, and it’s not even close.

Afraid you know very little about ETA Valjoux yes they make base movements but they make chronometer movements too that have powered many high end Swiss brand.Plus some of the most expensive collectable Rolex dont have a Rolex made movement in the case but ones from ETA Valjoux. And in many ways the coaxial escapement is as perfect as it gets and in many ways better than even the Rolex escapement.Now the George Daniels escapement has been available to the market for 30 plus years George Daniels had attempted to introduce his escapement to the Swiss industry,and Omega,Patek,Piguet,Zenith and even Rolex had prototypes in 1986 and 1989.

But there are many reasons why these companies entertained Daniels and many reasons why they decided to pass on the escapement. It seems to me that in the main it was an issue of expense to retool and develop the escapement for already built series of production movements and that it was then a unknown quantity, which was made in one-offs for the connoisseur to try in those early years.Now this Daniels escapement needed to be oiled correctly to work 100% and many of the watch industry did not follow Daniels instructions to the letter,most did not follow his advice for the VPH (vibrations per hour).

Now when Patek Philippe decided to try his escapement and three wristwatch sized prototypes were made to test by Patek themselves.Now the movement drawings were discussed and Daniels saw one big stumbling block, the proportion of the extra driving wheel to his escapement.Now Patek rejected his notion,and even in the face of Daniels working with the Patek provided movement prototype.By 1982 his prototype was cased and dialled from the Patek factory,Daniels stated he gave the watch daily use for twelve years, when the self winding mechanism failed,properly from lack of maintenance. It was not serviced to test the effectiveness of the escapement over a 12 year period. The Daniels escapement functioned perfectly,now the Patek analysis was quite critical and the prime fault was in the gears, which Daniels had mentioned at the beginning of the project.


So why is the Daniels escapement not used in many of the high end watch houses.Well IMHO I imagine it may have been as simple as "Not Swiss Made." or may turn out to be too complicated to make on a mass production scale or re-tool machines in-house?.But now Omega for one, plus a few more have made it work to a very high standard indeed.So today when you think of the humble wrist watch,basically changing little since John Harrison's days almost 300 years ago.With tweaks to the basic escapement over the past 250 years,I wonder what would have happened if Daniels was alive in John Harrison's days.

[TswaneNguni]

The Speedmaster "Silver Snoopy Award" Limited Edition ??
Dark side of the Moon..the Grey side of the moon...the white side of the moon ??
Next ...The fifty shades of Moon grey Limited edition ?

[TswaneNguni]

I like the 311.30.44.51.01.002 .....



That's the 44mm moonwatch .Classic look .

[bobernet]

Originally Posted by padi56

Afraid you know very little about ETA Valjoux yes they make base movements but they make chronometer movements too that have powered many high end Swiss brand.

I’m not sure what point you’re making. I never said “Rolex has never used a third party movement.” Nor that ETA never made a chronometer.

Prior to the Daniels escapement acquisition and overhaul, the majority of Omega’s non-chronograph watches were cases filled with ETA 2892. That’s not an opinion.

Plus some of the most expensive collectable Rolex dont have a Rolex made movement in the case but ones from ETA Valjoux.

See above. And Rolex also used the El Primero. And Rolex’s “in-house” movement division wasn’t fully owned by Rolex for much of their history. Never the less, Rolex wasn’t building cases for ETA 3-hand movements except under the Tudor brand - which is a much better comparison to modern Omega.

And in many ways the coaxial escapement is as perfect as it gets and in many ways better than even the Rolex escapement.Now the George Daniels escapement has been available to the market for 30 plus years...

What are the “many” ways it’s better than the lever escapement? It solves a problem that didn’t exist (friction on pallet jewels) and introduces new problems like challenging performance at higher beat rates, more finicky from a service perspective and sensitive to oiling, etc.

It has been available for over 30 years and no one used it because it was a different solution to the escapement problem, not a “better” one. Omega bought it because they were being lumped in with lower priced brands and Swatch wanted to compete head to head with Rolex. So, they bought the Daniels escapement, launched “in house” Co-axial movements, and raised their prices. The Daniels escapement was a marketing and brand-positioning exercise, not a technical one to solve an accuracy or wear problem with their existing Omega-finished ETA movements.

<Clipped interesting history of Daniels shopping his escapement for a buyer...>

Well IMHO I imagine it may have been as simple as "Not Swiss Made." or may turn out to be too complicated to make on a mass production scale or re-tool machines in-house?.

Or it just doesn’t solve a problem that needed solving.

[NYG1121]

Omega is missing out on a major opportunity handed to them by Rolex. They had a chance to right the ship, increase brand awareness and stabilize value of their product due to current Rolex situation. They also timed it just right with release of their new seamaster line which is a great watch. But nope, they blew it and instead continue to flood the market with tons of variations of their products and oversupply.

They could have had tons of people "wanting" the new SMP, which in turn would've allowed more people to check out their other offerings and learn about the brand while waiting for their SMP. Similarly, the should've done this long time ago with the core of their brand which is the speedy.

I don't think it is marketing as they have their name out there through various endorsements and commercials etc. They just don't know how to preserve their brand.

I still enjoy their watches and will continue to do so. But I would have FAR more in my collection if I knew they retained value. Simple as that.

[Fallranger]

IMHO Rolex is similar to Omega with regards to Omega’s higher end offerings with full in house movements. Omega, unlike Rolex, still sources many parts from other manufacturers so their entry level pieces are not up to par with Rolex’s entry level OP.

Both products have a rich history but Omega’s history and offerings vary so much more than Rolex who is resistive to change is it’s a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[subprimero]

Traditionally they were competitors, now the prices are too divergent.

[oldman2005]

Rolex and Omega are competitors, actually I think Omega is a very good competitor to Rolex SS sport and I do think this is one of the reason why Rolex is moving up the market with higher price DJ/TT/PM and leave Omega, Grand Seiko,... and other to feed on the lower price lower profit-margin SS sport watches.

I do own both Omega and Rolex and do think this PO was a better overall watch/value than the Submariner. Beside that after more than 10 years since I bought these 2 new watches from the ADs, the Sub increased its worth about 3 times while the PO is worth about the same. The Omega was may daily beater for 10+ years.

Competition is good and healthy for the consumers and from what I heard Omega is doing very well too, it's good that Omega is giving it to Rolex.

[Houston77]

Originally Posted by bobernet

So, just as an example, you’ve held a Speedmaster and a Daytona and said, “yeah, they’re pretty equal?” I find that really shocking.

I sold my Speedmaster after it sat in a watch box for 3 or 4 years mostly unworn. I’d say the quality, finish, etc difference between the two is dramatic.

I don’t hate Omega at all, but they had devolved into a brand sticking outsourced ETA movements into their cases like so many other lower-mid tier Swiss brands. They bought the escapement from George Daniels, and had ETA build new movements around them with the Omega logo.

I’m sure they want to catch Rolex from a competitive perspective, but the market speaks every day, and it’s not even close.

How about the sub compared to the new Seamaster 300m? There's a lot to like about the new Seamaster.

[bobernet]

Originally Posted by Houston77

How about the sub compared to the new Seamaster 300m? There's a lot to like about the new Seamaster.

I think the new Seamaster 300m is the best watch of its type at its price point. I hate Omega’s HEV design. The big, extra crown ruins the lines of the watch for me. In any case, this vs the Sub is a much closer race (to me) than the Speedy and Daytona.

[bobernet]

As a research exercise... how many posts can you find of people who sold their Daytona to fund a Speedmaster because they thought it was better? How many people sold their Submariner to fund a Seamaster they thought was better? How may sold their Datejust to buy an Aqua Terra they thought was better?

There are loads of examples going the opposite direction.

If the new and pre-owned prices of Omega and Rolex were identical, Omega would sell a lot fewer watches. They are the more budget-friendly alternative. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t make them head to head competitors.

Almost everyone who advocates for Omega as a better brand doesn’t own both. You won’t find many people saying they own Rolex and Omega but think their Omegas are “better.”

[AK797]

In simple terms, Rolex in SS is Mercedes, Omega is BMW. Recently there appears a larger disparity due to hype, but substantively they are very similar.

[m j b]

Originally Posted by Alex_TA

It's all just voices in your head.

The voices in my head say that you are mistaken.

Originally Posted by JP.

Yeah... it looks like it's impossible to start a even watch discussion in watch forum without offending or "triggering" someone these days. Amazing!

I find your comment insulting.

Originally Posted by bobernet

I don’t hate Omega at all, but they had devolved into a brand sticking outsourced ETA movements into their cases like so many other lower-mid tier Swiss brands.

This bugged me to tears - when I had my Speedmaster serviced and the (indy) doing the work suggested that I could just buy a whole new movement for $250. I know the new Seamaster (and I assume other models) now have a new in-house Omega movement, so I guess they are trying to get past this shortcoming.

I like Omega, and I've had a few. My last one never got worn, because I could instead wear a Rolex, and really, they aren't in the same category.

Agree though that a nice pre-owned Omega does make a compelling value proposition, especially if one needs/wants a beater.

[HogwldFLTR]

IMHO, it seems like a striking difference between the two companies.

1) Typically Rolex is more expensive, in general much more..

2) Omega still relies on a 1969 moon shot to push it's product.

3) Omega is continually introducing short run specialties to help with sales. It's very difficult to look at the Omega lineage. It's almost impossible to choose which older Omegas are gems and which are trash.

4) The moon shot watch by today's standards is substandard but still produced with lousy w/r due to popular demand. Yes there are other more modern version.

5) Omega is part of a conglomerate; not so with Rolex.

Just as an addition on the Co-axial; it took four iterations (maybe 5?) to make it more or less dependable. I had the first revision which I bought used. I felt like I was wearing a ticking time bomb waiting for it to fail.

[jerryguo]

I don't think there really is any rivalry, like you mentioned, different price range and not in the same league

[Junior_]

Originally Posted by crazymcmichael

I feel Rolex is a step above Omega but i love both brands

Agree. I love Rolex, though there are a bunch of references I just don’t like (sorry Yachtmaster and Air King).

I don’t like most Omega references, but there are a few I love (looking at you, Speedy).

Both Rolex and Omega make great watches.

But for many reasons, Rolex, in my opinion, is a tier above Omega.

[Dirt]

The rivalry goes back a long way.
And pretty much back further than the day when just about any watchmaker alive had started their first day on the bench.

Before Rolex became what they are today Omega was generally regarded as a better watch manufacturer by those old watchmakers that used to service all brands of watches.
My understanding is that the reputation was well deserved.
Somewhere along the line Rolex overtook Omega with their robust movements and the tables were turned.
I think the quartz crisis further distilled the differences between the two brands.
Omega are seriously trying to catch up in the marketplace, but their efforts seem to be a bit off in practical terms and in the ways the old watchmaker would've fully understood.
These days where the watch repair facet of the industry is becoming increasingly compartmentalized and exclusive to the manufacturer, the old way of repairing or servicing everything that came across the bench are long gone.
There can't be too many watchmaker that have the depth of experience to be able to debate amongst themselves about it in practical terms.
In summary, It's a debate that's becoming irrelevant in many ways in this modern era.
A bit like asking a Mercedes mechanic what they think of BMW cars, engines, etc and visa versa.

[vman]

Today the term rivalry make sense. But when I picked up an Omega and a Rolex for the first time—it was years ago—I could not understand why Rolex was more expensive.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by jerryguo

I don't think there really is any rivalry, like you mentioned, different price range and not in the same league

If one removes the price point metric.
It's possible to make a much more direct comparison between the two.

The price point has skewed the perspective dramatically.
I believe Omega used to win on "value for money" when it came to the overall watch package but for some reason they seem to be losing the plot with their new Automatic movements. It's almost like they can't get it together for some reason. For one example the thickness of the movements is something that I can't fathom.
Surely they can design the equivalent thing to Rolex in a comparable size?

[Marlboro.]

I think that Rolex recovered from the quartz crisis a lot better than Omega, from what I know they were previously about equal with regards to public perception. Omega for a long time moved away from in-house movements and made a lot of contemporary designs in the 80's and 90's that would stand out like a sore thumb amongst modern watches.

Omega has improved a lot in the last 10-15 years and seem to be getting out of their post-quartz slump, the new in-house movements are great and are so much better than anything Omega offered 20 years ago.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by vman

Today the term rivalry make sense. But when I picked up an Omega and a Rolex for the first time—it was years ago—I could not understand why Rolex was more expensive.

That was right. But I'm not certain of the era you are referring to.
But it was what the Rolex had under the Case Back that set them apart prior to the quartz crisis. The marketing was also crucial.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Marlboro.

I think that Rolex recovered from the quartz crisis a lot better than Omega, from what I know they were previously about equal with regards to public perception. Omega for a long time moved away from in-house movements and made a lot of contemporary designs in the 80's and 90's that would stand out like a sore thumb amongst modern watches.

Omega has improved a lot in the last 10-15 years and seem to be getting out of their post-quartz slump, the new in-house movements are great and are so much better than anything Omega offered 20 years ago.

There is that.
But the ETA based watches weren't exactly rubbish but I think this is where the divergence in price point between the two really became galvanised.