Is a Submariner an upgrade from a PO?

[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!

[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.

[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.

[airhkg]

I have an SMP GMT Co-Ax and a Submariner both are great watches but if I had to say..
Rolex is an upgrade on an Omega. No offense guys but it is what it is.

[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

[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.

[C. Davidson]

Short answer, yes.

[asadtiger]

a sub is an upgrade in a lot of ways:

value
re-sale value
classic design
world's most recognised and appreciated and copied watch
and so on

it is NOT an upgrade in the follwoing way:

PO is more modern designed, many may say that it is better in looks..its down-right beautiful
quality of bracelet and clasp on PO is much better
Omega's new up-dated movement makes the movement a bit special in my books
PO has more wrist-presence with its larger sizes and different design
and so on

so, in my opinion, no need to waste that kind of money...enjoy your watch..wear it knowing you have an awesome watch and spend that extra money on a trip to Hawaii

just my humble opinion :D

p.s. dont forget to share the trip's pics with us

[gettocard]

I'm facing this dilemma in reverse,sell my brand new Submariner no date to make funds for a PO.
My personal opinion for your decision is a big NO. At least not for a LV. I wanted a LV so bad for 5 years and when finally acquired one las year the green got old pretty fast. The black bezel option for the LV did not work either,the result was a Rolex looking like a Seiko to me. Stay with you PO for a while,if you decide to go for Rolex,get the classic 16610.

[Desperado]

I ve been through the same dilemma with my PO ! but honestly i couldnt let go such a beautiful watch so i had to save money for the 16610 (just received it). but in your case if your need for a Rolex is desperate then let go the PO. but i think that you need to wait for the new Sub.

[mike]

Both references bring a lot to the table. I would agree with those that say hold of if you can and see what the new sub offering does for you.

[skip73]

Originally Posted by Desperado

I ve been through the same dilemma with my PO ! but honestly i couldnt let go such a beautiful watch so i had to save money for the 16610 (just received it). but in your case if your need for a Rolex is desperate then let go the PO. but i think that you need to wait for the new Sub.

Congrats on the new watch! So how do you feel about your PO now that you have your new rollie?

[j-geng]

hey skip

mate i brought a submariner date (black bezel though) after my PO purchurse and i can tell you that the sub gets no wrist time for me.. no offence but i kind of regret the 7k (AUD) i spent on the sub...
i would say get a GMTc if diving is not one of your priorities...
cheers

[sexner]

Originally Posted by j-geng

hey skip

mate i brought a submariner date (black bezel though) after my PO purchurse and i can tell you that the sub gets no wrist time for me.. no offence but i kind of regret the 7k (AUD) i spent on the sub...
i would say get a GMTc if diving is not one of your priorities...
cheers

I must agree, the GMT Master II c is superior to the Submariner in every way. I too would hang on and see if the inevitable Submariner improvements catch your eye.

Be prepared for a substantial increase in price.

Good luck.

[Trurolexer]

If you like it, GO FOR IT. That's simple. Good luck whatever your decision is.

[rkammer]

When the original poster says to "take brand recognition out of the equation", the answer is simple. Using his own words, the Rolex is "just an expensive side step".

[jmsrolls]

My first nice watch was a Rolex President that was my daily wearer for 20 years then in 2002, I bought my first Omega. As I began to compare the Rolex line with the Omega, I realized that Omega represented comparable quality for considerably less money.

So began my journey into "WISdom" as I ventured into Omegaland with the purchase of a collection of seventeen Omegas using seed money from the sale of my President. Included in the collection were examples of each of the Omega lines including a museum piece. Since then I have owned 80+ Omegas but last year, I did add an EXPII to my collection. (The EXPII was purchased not because it was a Rolex but rather because I wanted a classic, thin, sport, GMT in my collection; i.e., a purely subjective decision on my part.)

Needless to say between the two brands, I am biased toward Omega. Both are great watches but all in all, I am convinced that Omega represents better value, technology, horology, and history. I do concede that Rolex is significantly better at marketing.

One on one, I would compare diver models as follows:

• Submariner vs. Seamaster Professional
  
• Sea Dweller vs. Seamaster Planet Ocean
  
• Deep Sea vs. the new Seamaster Ploprof

Take marketing (image) out of the equations when comparing these watches and IMO Omega wins each time based on objectivity.

The argument commonly heard when comparing Omega and Rolex is that Rolex has better resale value. Perhaps so but consider the starting point with which this comparison is made. Rolex discourages ADs from discounting so pre-owned prices are generally referenced to MSRP. On the other hand, paying MSRP for a new Omega is the exception rather than the rule.

An example of this is that the MSRP of the Deep Sea and the Ploprof are both roughly $9000 but the Ploprof can be purchased NIB for as little as $6300 from an AD. Which represents the better value?

Another example is to compare the Sub Date with the SMP. The Sub Date lists for $5850 while the sticker on my SMP was $2350 but was purchased new from an AD for $1645. As a matter of fact, these three were purchased new from an AD for a total of $684 less than the MSRP of the Sub Date:



Another factor keeping pre-owned Rolex values up is the almost automatic price increase Rolex imposes annually. Raising the price of a new watch will usually translate into increased value of a pre-owned model. Omega does not arbitrarily raise its prices.

But bottom line, choosing a watch is generally a subjective matter of personal choice. Seldom do we make objective decisions when buying watches. If we did, we would all be wearing Casios.

So as we are fond of saying, "Buy whatever sings to you."

Fr. John†

[rkammer]

Originally Posted by jmsrolls

My first nice watch was a Rolex President that was my daily wearer for 20 years then in 2002, I bought my first Omega. As I began to compare the Rolex line with the Omega, I realized that Omega represented comparable quality for considerably less money.

So began my journey into "WISdom" as I ventured into Omegaland with the purchase of a collection of seventeen Omegas using seed money from the sale of my President. Included in the collection were examples of each of the Omega lines including a museum piece. Since then I have owned 80+ Omegas but last year, I did add an EXPII to my collection. (The EXPII was purchased not because it was a Rolex but rather because I wanted a classic, thin, sport, GMT in my collection; i.e., a purely subjective decision on my part.)

Needless to say between the two brands, I am biased toward Omega. Both are great watches but all in all, I am convinced that Omega represents better value, technology, horology, and history. I do concede that Rolex is significantly better at marketing.

One on one, I would compare diver models as follows:

• Submariner vs. Seamaster Professional
  
• Sea Dweller vs. Seamaster Planet Ocean
  
• Deep Sea vs. the new Seamaster Ploprof

Take marketing (image) out of the equations when comparing these watches and IMO Omega wins each time based on objectivity.

The argument commonly heard when comparing Omega and Rolex is that Rolex has better resale value. Perhaps so but consider the starting point with which this comparison is made. Rolex discourages ADs from discounting so pre-owned prices are generally referenced to MSRP. On the other hand, paying MSRP for a new Omega is the exception rather than the rule.

An example of this is that the MSRP of the Deep Sea and the Ploprof are both roughly $9000 but the Ploprof can be purchased NIB for as little as $6300 from an AD. Which represents the better value?

Another example is to compare the Sub Date with the SMP. The Sub Date lists for $5850 while the sticker on my SMP was $2350 but was purchased new from an AD for $1645. As a matter of fact, these three were purchased new from an AD for a total of $684 less than the MSRP of the Sub Date:



Another factor keeping pre-owned Rolex values up is the almost automatic price increase Rolex imposes annually. Raising the price of a new watch will usually translate into increased value of a pre-owned model. Omega does not arbitrarily raise its prices.

But bottom line, choosing a watch is generally a subjective matter of personal choice. Seldom do we make objective decisions when buying watches. If we did, we would all be wearing Casios.

So as we are fond of saying, "Buy whatever sings to you."

Fr. John†

Excellent post Fr. John. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[esm]

have both in my collection at the moment and have to admit the sub is def a step up. Love the po also. Its is also an awesome watch.

[MarJnK]

If you remove brand recognition from the equation then you also remove the Sub's strong resale value.

Watch for watch, the PO is nicer in my opinion. More/better lume, more wrist presence, killer bracelet and a nice movement. The sub's bracelet is a joke at that price point.

But there is no denying the panache that Rolex oozes.

I think as others have said, the new sub will be a nice challenge and possible upgrade for the PO, but not the current Sub.

[chriseskew24]

Honestly I love my SUB but in terms of what you receive for the money takeing Brand recognition out of the equation i belive you may want to stick with the PO. But if you are bored with the PO which i can understand because i get bored pretty easy then go for it. A pre loved 16610 on this forum can be had from 3000.00 no papers up to around 4500.00 complete good luck in the hunt :)

[iwantagmt]

I would consider it a lateral move. I just can't understand how a Sub would be "better" than a PO which has twice the depth rating, HE value, 2 extra years between servicing, much finer bracelet, clasp, and case finishing, brighter lume, ball bearing rotor mount, etc.

I believe that the resale value and the recognition of the Sub may offset the very tangible benefits of the PO but dont make it an "upgrade."

Personally, I spend a lot of time deciding on watches and only buy what I love and plan to keep.. so resale value discussions are irrelevant to my personal decision rubric.

[skip73]

Thank you all for your comments, a lot of them have already gone through my mind as well as some very good points I had not considered.

I almost bought one on the weekend and I thought I had made my mind up so I went to my AD again today to have "another look".

After comparing the Sub LV side by side with my PO I have decided, for now, to enjoy my PO.

Basically, I like the look of the Sub but not the feel, this is mainly due to the bracelet and clasp. With the PO, I like both the look AND feel so, for now, the PO wins!

Thank you all for helping me see the light!

[NJSub]

Well, I think a lot of people end up with both. Because they are both beautiful.

I love my Sub, but can't wait for the day when I can reward myself with a Seamaster!

[AIKO]

I have owned the PO and SMP chrono as well as Sub LV. They are all very nice watches. But in short, yes the Submariner is an upgade over the PO. Keep in mind it will wear a bit smaller, so if you are a size freak, you may want to look at the SD or DSSD.

[heresiarh]

I personally don't own any Omegas but in my opinion the only upgrade to Sub is the resale value, otherwise PO is one hell of a time piece.

[skip73]

The before and after!

[icnbne]

Originally Posted by skip73

The before and after!

gorgeous

[htc8p]

its the most classic of all watches. that being said that one rolex should be enough in a long while!

wait for the one with the adjustable clasp for dive suit.

dont let go of your PO and watch your collection grow

[TurboWatch]

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