ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
15 January 2010, 08:59 AM | #31 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 42
|
Quote:
It was only by luck and Spiderman-style reflexes that I caught it before it hit the tarmac. So: they are not perfect. It shouldn't have happened. The clasp is not otherwise 'loose' and the watch is a 2005 model. |
|
15 January 2010, 10:20 AM | #32 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Real Name: Travis
Location: Central Texas
Watch: Sub Date 16610
Posts: 284
|
I'm actually rather disappointed with Omega discontinuing the sword hand 2254. The skeleton hand SMPs (especially the blue) just look hideous imho. The dial is busier (see: almost futuristic looking) and the bracelet to me looks like a style I could easily find on a Fossil, Seiko, etc. I know the materials of the Omega bracelet are high in quality but the look doesn't cut it for me.
That being said, it is a much "better" value if you're looking for a great quality swiss dive watch. |
15 January 2010, 03:23 PM | #33 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Justin
Location: california
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
some would argue rolexes are terribly overpriced. it's marketing. its all about perceived value. |
|
15 January 2010, 08:47 PM | #34 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Melb - Australia
Posts: 2,959
|
Both Sub and Seamaster Professional are overpriced compared to Oris or Breiting.... Like Merc and BMW compared to Lexus (Oris) and Audi (Breitling)
|
15 January 2010, 11:16 PM | #35 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Posts: 8,148
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
16 January 2010, 02:13 AM | #36 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Scotland
Watch: 14060m
Posts: 631
|
Quote:
Im VERY surprised with your clasp story and agree it should not have happened. It certainly sounds like a kinda "one off" scenario though. |
|
5 February 2010, 03:37 AM | #37 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Jason
Location: ny
Posts: 27
|
I just recently went to an AD in my area and wanted to really look at the bracelets...
I must agree that the Sub's bracelet could be improved with the Glidelock... Just my opinion... |
24 March 2010, 02:04 AM | #38 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Real Name: Erik
Location: Sweden
Watch: Rolex, Candino
Posts: 168
|
Great review Chris, thanks alot!
|
24 March 2010, 03:53 PM | #39 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Joe
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,835
|
Thx for the great review Chris!
The Seamaster really do smile at me, and have done so for quite some time now. But if it came down to which one to choose between (and money wasn't an issue), yeah then I'll probably - 99% sure - go with the Submariner. I really can't put my finger on it why I would choose the Sub, since I almost like the design of the Omega more. But I guess at the end of the day, the Sub would have more value to me in the long run (not talking money value here). I've already owned a Seamaster, and ended up selling it, something that I'm pretty sure I won't do when I get my hand on a Submariner. I don't know if this makes any sense what so ever - just me rambling. But I guess for me the Sub is a Rolex and all the history, quality, in-house movement, + all the other "things" that comes with this brand - and the Seamaster is... well, something else. Thx again for sharing! Cheers, Joe
__________________
"Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works." - S.J. |
24 March 2010, 05:12 PM | #40 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: George
Location: Seattle
Watch: One of Them
Posts: 6,924
|
I have owned both the SMP (2254) and a few Submariners. I enjoyed my SMP; however, I no longer own an SMP (I do own a Broad Arrow) as I simply enjoy the feel and aesthetics of the Sub. The dial is exquisite and the bracelet is quite functional albeit the clasp is not nearly as refined as the SMP. The Sub bracelet is far more scratch resistant from my experience particularly on the clasp.
You make the point that the Sub is not twice the watch as the SMP based on the initial cost. However, you fail to take into account the value of the commodity over time. I have found the Sub appreciates more than the SMP. I have yet to lose money on a Rolex. It is nice to wear a nice watch for a couple years and make a few hundred bucks for the effort. As for the Omega, I recently picked up a near mint Omega Broad Arrow for under $2K when the list is approximately $5K. Thanks for the review and you certainly will stir up some opinions. All the best, George |
25 March 2010, 03:52 AM | #41 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Annapolis, MD
Watch: Sea-Dweller 16600
Posts: 5,081
|
I don't think there is a comparison between the modern Sub and Seamaster.
Go back in time to 1972 and compare a Sub Date to a Seamaster 300 and you will have a much tougher choice. |
26 March 2010, 08:52 AM | #42 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Land of the Lost
Watch: 116610LN
Posts: 2,201
|
I have to agree with your review.
Objectively the SMP wins. Subjectively the Subbie wins. But who is subjective that spends thousands on a watch? |
18 July 2014, 06:16 AM | #43 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: Eric Chan
Location: Vancouver, BC CAN
Watch: Day-Date 118238
Posts: 8,798
|
A great thread. Was looking for something like this for a while on this forum. Personally, I have always felt these two watches were a great comparison for one another. I own a Submariner Date 16610 LN and my brother in law owns an Omega 300M and we oten times do our own comparisons.
Would love to see someone do a comparison between the Omega 300M ceramic and the Submariner Date 116610. It would be interesting to see how the Sub fairs against the 300M after the upgrades to the clasp and bracelet. It would probably be a more realistic comparison. |
18 July 2014, 06:55 AM | #44 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2014
Real Name: John
Location: La Jolla, CA
Watch: Platona
Posts: 12,194
|
Dated review.
|
13 August 2014, 06:46 AM | #45 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Real Name: Tom
Location: Houston
Watch: Submariner-C Date
Posts: 40
|
I bought the Sub-C over the Omega PO or the AT - mainly because of two things: (1) the dial design on the new Maxi Dial, and (2) the new steel monobloc case and bracelet. When you compared the two by putting them on, you could really tell a difference in the heft and weight of the two materials. Rolex steel is truly "HEAVY METAL."
|
13 August 2014, 06:48 AM | #46 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Real Name: Tom
Location: Houston
Watch: Submariner-C Date
Posts: 40
|
Let me be clear: the newer SUB C that was unveiled in 2010.
|
13 August 2014, 09:36 AM | #47 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,122
|
|
13 August 2014, 11:13 AM | #48 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Watch: Rolex GMT II
Posts: 81
|
Fun read. I don't own these 2 particular references. Mine are older. I have a Red 1680 and a 2531.80 "Bond" SMP. I honestly love both watches. They both have pros and cons.
I'd say the Red Sub looks a little more manly, possibly due to me thinking "Holy Crap! I finally have a red Sub!" The Omega is dressier. As far as feel, I agree the Seamaster wins everyday and twice on Sunday. The Omega bracelet is awesome. By comparison, the 9315 feels like a Canal Street Special. I have worn my Omega while scuba diving. It worked flawlessly. The dial is very readable, and was watertight down to 120~ish feet. I have absolutely zero need for the HEV, but it doesn't bother me that it's there. I have never taken the Sub deeper than arm's depth. I know it can, but it's a frickin' 1680! There's no way I'm chancing anything with such a classic. Timekeeping is pretty much a draw. I have a great watchmaker nearby who has them running great. One thing that blows my mind though is that the Omega loses time like crazy on my watch winder...a couple minutes a week. I'm guessing I need a different speed or rotation setting. The funny thing is that when I wear it constantly, it keeps fantastic time...usually -1 sec/day on my watch timer. (I usually rotate my watches every week.) I only have 2 Omegas, the Seamaster Pro and a Speedmaster Pro. They've actually held their value pretty well. But the 2531.80 was one of the models worn by Brosnan in the movies, so that explains why it's held up. But I fully agree. Generally, Omegas lose a lot more value than a Rolex. I love both watches, and don't foresee selling either. They're two winners for sure. |
29 August 2017, 05:14 AM | #49 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2017
Real Name: Lou
Location: Midwest US
Watch: DJ36
Posts: 6
|
Awesome review. Thanks a lot Chris. I think both watches are awesome pieces with great design and functionality/versatility. It really boils down in terms to personal preferences, budgets, and whether you will keep the watch in long term or flip them at certain point of time.
|
29 August 2017, 05:16 AM | #50 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Real Name: Ryan
Location: Manchester
Watch: GMT Master II
Posts: 150
|
Pretty solid comparison. Nice read.
|
1 September 2017, 09:31 AM | #51 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,005
|
Nice bump! Chris, I didn't realise you had your own watch blog! Good work
|
2 September 2017, 03:39 AM | #52 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2013
Real Name: Jack
Location: The Triangle
Watch: Several
Posts: 6,623
|
What a great review, just saw this yesterday, a few years down the road. I have always liked, really liked the look of the Seamaster, and this review supports my impression, a terrific watch.
I don't regret my choices over the last seven years, a Planet Ocean 2500 and a Sub, 14060m. Both are great, but about that Seamaster, I do wonder what if...
__________________
Sub 116613 LN; GMT 116710 LN; Sinn 104R; Exp 214270; GS SBGM221; Omega AT |
4 September 2017, 03:53 AM | #53 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 32
|
I saw Costco is selling Omega's, just saying.....
|
4 September 2017, 04:19 AM | #54 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Toronto area
Posts: 84
|
|
4 September 2017, 04:44 AM | #55 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Real Name: Max
Location: UK
Watch: Various
Posts: 3,726
|
I cant believe 2 things about this thread.
1: It was started in December 2009, it then went dead until July 2014, and then went dead again until August 2017 - how do these threads keep getting re opened after such long time periods laying dormant??? 2: In 2009 A Rolex Submariner was only £3890 and an Omega Seamaster was only £1860 UK Sterling!!! Man, I got into this watch game far far too late in life!! |
2 November 2018, 12:46 PM | #56 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Rome
Posts: 18
|
Submariner vs. Seamaster Comparison
Very nice review
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.