# rolex vs omega



## shirtguy

Besides name brand and price which watch is better omega seamaster or the rolex submariner?


----------



## T-Bag

Define "better".


----------



## shirtguy

movement, value per dollar


----------



## T-Bag

Movement: IMO Rolex's inhouse movement seems to be rock solid while Omega uses modified ETAs. Both great movements that will outlast both you and me with proper care.

Bracelet goes to Omega, hands down.

Really a tough call. I'd prefer the sub, but dollar for dollar - the Omega seems to be a better value. 

Here is an interesting link for your review:


----------



## HoustonTEX

I have the seamaster but kind of still want the submariner. not really sure why.


----------



## shirtguy

could it be because you would like to own a "ROLEX"


----------



## nolan50410

It's a very tricky comparison. Rolex is obviously the better brand name. Rolex will hold its value better. Rolex has the better movement from what I've been told. Most people who buy Omegas buy the quartz ones. They are cheaper and keep better time. A good quartz Seamaster will run you $1900 while a submariner at best will cost you $5300. My best friend is a huge watch guru and owns both Rolexes and Omegas. He says the Rolex is the watch you buy when you love watches and Omega is the watch you buy when you want to impress someone with a luxury status symbol type watch but don't care about how the watch functions. I'm saving up for my first nice watch, and it will be an Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra. Beautiful watches.


----------



## shirtguy

Isnt rolex considered the watch to impress while the seamaster is not as popular


----------



## nolan50410

Its very strange. Rolex will impress people who don't know anything about watches. Omega impresses watch lovers (or just wealthy folks), but not those who know nothing of watches. If you are talking about value in terms of how good of an impression do you make with an Omega vs Rolex per dollar spent, then I think Omega wins hands down. Omega impresses the kinds of people worth impressing at a much cheaper price then Rolex. That to me is the definition of a great value.


----------



## M6Classic

shirtguy said:


> Besides name brand and price which watch is better omega seamaster or the rolex submariner?


Many watches are better than either on a strict quality of the movement basis. There are a great many better values...I for one would look at the Orris watches which house extremely fine and durable movements in un-ostentatious cases at relatively modest prices.

Of course, if one will be happy only with a Rolex or an Omega...gfo for it and be happy!

Buzz


----------



## T-Bag

nolan50410 said:


> It's a very tricky comparison. Rolex is obviously the better brand name. Rolex will hold its value better. Rolex has the better movement from what I've been told. Most people who buy Omegas buy the quartz ones. They are cheaper and keep better time. A good quartz Seamaster will run you $1900 while a submariner at best will cost you $5300. My best friend is a huge watch guru and owns both Rolexes and Omegas. He says the Rolex is the watch you buy when you love watches and Omega is the watch you buy when you want to impress someone with a luxury status symbol type watch but don't care about how the watch functions. I'm saving up for my first nice watch, and it will be an Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra. Beautiful watches.


With all due respect, I disagree with so much that has been said here.

Personally I see a LOT more automatic Omegas that quartzes. Maybe 5 to 1.

I also don't think many TRUE watch enthusiasts think that Rolex is the be all, end all. Quite the opposite. There are so many watches out that that offer more complications, superior craftsmanship, etc. LOTS more prestige in a VC, Patek or Breguet. Aside from the actual Rolex area at Timezone, most poke fun and look down on the Rolex crowd.

To the general public, Rolex is THE status watch. A lot of people aren't all that familiar with Omega at all.

Take it for what it is worth, just my humble (yet quite correct) opinion. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Mark Anthony

This comparison and debate is probably the single most popular one in the watch world. And it can get awfully passionate on both sides. Just check out timezone and watchnet amongst other sites.

Interestingly I was in a store just yesterday trying on the Seamaster.

There appears to be a consensus is that the Omega is probably the best value for money of any dive watch. Even amongst many Rolex Sub owners.

If you get the Co-axial version it probably edges out the Sub in movement quality, while the regular version gives a slight edge to Rolex. Though you will get passionate opinions on this from all sides.

Ruggedness apparently goes to the Rolex Submariner as it uses a harder steel for the case and some out there say it absorbs banging around better thus protecting the movement better.

Aesthetics is purely subjective, I like the Sub a bit better from that perspective.

So it is a very close call but consider that the Omega is 1/3 the price of the Rolex.

Many will say if you have the money get the Sub and you will have no second thoughts, fair enough I suppose. If you don't then get the Omega and you will have a legendary watch that most say is the best value for money watch made.

Disclosure: I am a Rolex DateJust owner and am coveting a black dial non co-axial Seamaster as I write this. Just trying to protect myself from the overzealous Rolex-haters and partisan Rolex-lovers alike.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## T-Bag

If you want the best value in an automatic dive watch you don't have to look any further than a Sieko Monster or Samurai. For $150-225, you can't beat them. Cult-like following, choice of many professional divers, tough as nails, plenty of heft... workhorses, plain and simple.


----------



## shirtguy

Granted that the patek or vc or maybe even the jlc are considered a tier above rolex however in the sport/diver watch is what im really asking


----------



## Mathew J

Speaking for myself I have owned three Rolex watches, a Datejust, an Explorer and now a Date Submariner and am on the cusp of buying my first Omega...with that said in retrospect I wish I hadn't bothered with the Rolex and just gone Omega as I percieve them to be a much better "value".

The Rolex steel thing has been debunked about a hundred times, the only thing better about it is the corrosion resistance and even that is debatable.

Personally I have regretted every Rolex I have purchased simply because I knew there were watches that were as nice or nicer for alot less money. Good luck


----------



## T-Bag

shirtguy said:


> Granted that the patek or vc or maybe even the jlc are considered a tier above rolex however in the sport/diver watch is what im really asking


If you want to go a tier above Rolex, look to IWC.

Similar pricing to a Sub AND it's an IWC. To me, IWC is a brand that doesn't scream, "Look at me, I'm wearing a _________!", yet those "in the know" - know!


----------



## shirtguy

hasnt the quality gone down over the years?


----------



## misterdonuts

T-Bag said:


> Movement: IMO Rolex's inhouse movement seems to be rock solid while Omega uses modified ETAs.


Sorry, since when do Rolex make their own movements?


----------



## T-Bag

shirtguy said:


> hasnt the quality gone down over the years?


With who, IWC? I have no idea.

I have heard terrible things about Omega's service center as of late, but I can't answer personally as I unloaded my Omega about 3 years ago.

My Rolex hasn't visited a service center yet, so I don't know about that either. I'm reading they are hit and miss.


----------



## shirtguy

when iwc was called *international watch co schaufhausen* it was considered top of the line, today as iwc i think its not as good


----------



## Fuzzypuppy

misterdonuts said:


> Sorry, since when do Rolex make their own movements?


Since forever. The only non-Rolex movement was the old 4130 in the previous generation Daytona, which was a heavily modified Zenith El Primero. Since the advent of the 4131 all Rolex movements are in-house.


----------



## Mark from Plano

nolan50410 said:


> It's a very tricky comparison. Rolex is obviously the better brand name. Rolex will hold its value better. Rolex has the better movement from what I've been told. Most people who buy Omegas buy the quartz ones. They are cheaper and keep better time. A good quartz Seamaster will run you $1900 while a submariner at best will cost you $5300. My best friend is a huge watch guru and owns both Rolexes and Omegas. He says the Rolex is the watch you buy when you love watches and Omega is the watch you buy when you want to impress someone with a luxury status symbol type watch but don't care about how the watch functions. I'm saving up for my first nice watch, and it will be an Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra. Beautiful watches.


Hmmm...here's my reaction to this:
1. Rolex will hold its value very well relative to what you should (and undoubtedly will) pay for a Rolex which is pretty much the retail price. Rolex dealers rarely discount much because Rolex's brand discipline is unmatched. Omega will hold its value pretty well relative to what you should (and hopefully will) pay for it which is about 30% below retail. Omega dealers will discount (you may have to shop) because Omega's brand discipline stinks.
2.


nolan50410 said:


> He says the Rolex is the watch you buy when you love watches and Omega is the watch you buy when you want to impress someone with a luxury status symbol type watch but don't care about how the watch functions.


 I hear what he's saying, in that Rolex has an in-house movement and Omega doesn't. But Omega won't impress anyone. Rolex is what you buy if you're into impressing people.

Omega makes a high quality product that sells at a lower price point than Rolex. The trade off is principally in the movement, since as has been previously pointed out Rolex manufactures in-house and Omega modifies ETA and Valjoux movements. HOWEVER, I believe that the Omega models that have the co-axial movement are much more in-house than in the past. I believe that the 3313 is based on a Piguet movement that is heavily modified, including replacing the escapement. Of course the co-axial models carry a pretty good price premium as well.


----------



## donk93953

I have 5 watches...3 are Rolex...one Mickey Mouse bought at Disneyland and a Patek Philippe (a gift)...
The Rolexes are worn and admired 99% of the time. 
The one that gets the most comment...?
The Mickey Mouse....when I wear it with my tux.....


----------



## Shade22182

I've owned both. An Omega Aqua Terra and a Rolex GMT II. Both great watches. 

The Omega kept immaculate time ... I'm talking a few seconds a month. I found that truly amazing. For some reason, my Omega was a nick magnet and this really bothered me. I sold it within a year of buying it at a huge loss. In short, it did not keep its value -- at all. 

My Rolex does not keep good time. This is annoying, but not that big a deal. It seems to be very impervious to nicks and dings. I took it to a service center last year for its 5-year maintenance. It came back looking 100% new. Not a blemish or hint of blemish on it. I believe I could sell today for more than what I paid for it 5 - 6 years ago. But I plan on keeping it forever.


----------



## misterdonuts

Mark from Plano said:


> Rolex dealers rarely discount much because Rolex's brand discipline is unmatched. Omega will hold its value pretty well relative to what you should (and hopefully will) pay for it which is about 30% below retail. Omega dealers will discount (you may have to shop) because Omega's brand discipline stinks.


That is not so much an issue with discipline as it is with the fact that authorised retailers only get just over 30% in gross margin for Rolex, compared to just over 50% for most other brands, making it impractical to offer meaningful discounts on Rolex pieces. With fairly high minimum sales requirements and low margin, many retailers would rather sell other stuff but nonetheless carry Rolex because it attracts customer traffic.

The feedback about Rolex actually making their own movements is very interesting. When referring to movements as being in-house, do people mean that Rolex make their own ebauche?


----------



## misterdonuts

Fuzzypuppy said:


> Since forever. The only non-Rolex movement was the old 4130 in the previous generation Daytona, which was a heavily modified Zenith El Primero. Since the advent of the 4131 all Rolex movements are in-house.


When Rolex first acquired the Oyster, I believe the movement was sourced externally by the original Oyster makers and subsequently by Rolex. The Prince is another model where Rolex sourced the movement (and all other components) from others, IIRC. Could you please elaborate on the heavy mods they made on the Zenith movement? I would be interested to understand them. 
Many thanks,
md


----------



## Mark Anthony

First off my posts are waaaay too long, sorry guys.

Ya, hard steel used by Rolex. I will concede it is probably another one of those exaggerations and quasi urban myths that surround much of Rolex. One more reason to go Omega.

IWC - cool divers, but still a bit pricy compared to Seamasters.

Seiko - pretty good stuff but I am Eurocentric what can I say:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## pweller

Of the two, the Rolex is going to be a better watch, maybe by 30% or so. The newer 3135 movements are very nice quality, better finished than an ETA movement. And, Rolex probably does use a harder steel than Omega. You'll probably see a difference in the amount of wear on a bracelet over 15 years or so (of course, you might be tired of the watch by then anyway, so it may not make a difference). However, the Rolex is about 3 times the price.

I would say this is pretty typical of all high-end luxury brands. Maybe 10%-30% better than the regular brands, but at 3 times the cost.

Really, your best bet would be to get a Rolex Date or Datejust, preferably one of the newer models (a quickset sapphire one with the 3135 movement - I don't think as much of the 3035 which is the previous generation). This is the same in-house movement used in the Submariner, but you will save over $1K! Buy it used, and you'll have a nice watch for a good price. All you have to do is get off the giant bandwagon where everyone wants a macho dive watch. (Remember, it's not a male-enhancement pill, it's just a watch.)

The Seiko is also a good option if you want something really inexpensive. It's by far the best value of these.


----------



## Mathew J

You're really better served asking this on timezone.com or one of the other watch specific boards...

The review cited is hosted on a site dedicated to Rolex plus the owner of that site is pretty biased.

Other things listed in here are pretty funny, especially regarding steel, 30% better quality (that made me laugh and cry a little) and profit margins of dealers. 

Good luck but really check some watch related sites for info before making any decisions. Both companies make good watches


----------



## guitone

I wear both Omega and Oris watches. Here is why I did not get a Rolex. Everyone knows what you have. Some like that, I don't. Also, thieves also know what you have. If you want to be flashier get the rolex. You can get a used rolex for a decent price. I have had my seamaster 120 for going on 8 years with no problems at all. Love the watch. My oris is nice but not in the same clase (bracelet, etc).


----------



## leica

I own both a Rolex SS Submariner and an Omega Seamaster. I like both watches. The Omega keeps better time but isn't quite as rugged. The Rolex is a tank, but doesn't keep time as well as the the Omega. 

I am constantly abusing my watches. The Rolex after a its service looks as good as new. The Omega shows scratches and dings a bit more. 

Both are excellent watches. If you want durability I suggest the Rolex. For accuracy the Omega is better. Although neither one keeps time as well as a US$20.00 quartz watch at Walmart.


----------



## Pulledpork

I too have a SS Rolex Sub, which is a souvenir from some time spent in the oil exploration industry many years ago. I don't own a modern Omega, but I do have a rose gold Constellation with a pie pan face that was made the same year I was.

Which is my favourite? Why, my 1879 Benson fusee, of course. These so-called "wrist watches" are simply a fad, the idea will never last. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## omairp

I wear an Omega, and for a short while contemplated buying a Rolex. The price tag on an Omega is easier to swallow, and the designs are more aesthetically pleasing to me. 

Regardless of how it's made (in-house or not), the end product from each brand is pretty comparable in terms of accuracy, durability, features, etc. Omega has made clear its intentions to become more "Rolex-ish" in the next few years by being determined to switch to all co-axial movements, raise their prices to be on par with Rolex, tighten up the grey market to raise re-sell values, and overtake Rolex in annual production. I personally have mixed feelings about this plan. 

As many people pointed out, if money is no object, there are many far better choices out there than either Omega or Rolex. 

Also, I have to admit something about the Rolex image rubs me the wrong way. It's probably just me, but wearing a Rolex strikes me as kind of like driving a silver porsche...


----------



## guitone

Pulledpork said:


> Which is my favourite? Why, my 1879 Benson fusee, of course. These so-called "wrist watches" are simply a fad, the idea will never last. :icon_smile_big:


Best line in the thread


----------



## guitone

omairp said:


> Also, I have to admit something about the Rolex image rubs me the wrong way. It's probably just me, but wearing a Rolex strikes me as kind of like driving a silver porsche...


Second best line in the thread.


----------



## Joe Frances

Omega. Wearing a Rolex is like driving around with whitewall tires.


----------



## T-Bag

Joe Frances said:


> Omega. Wearing a Rolex is like driving around with whitewall tires.


That post is absolutely worthless. Thanks for your input.


----------



## kogvos

Pulledpork said:


> Which is my favourite? Why, my 1879 Benson fusee, of course. These so-called "wrist watches" are simply a fad, the idea will never last. :icon_smile_big:


You're not a relative of Sator, are you?


----------



## Pulledpork

It's pretty unlikely.


----------



## dwebber18

I too believe that Rolex does make their own movements. That being said, I dont have tons of money to spend on stuff for other people to tell me how nice it is. I own a Tag Aquaracer, and I bought it because its a good quality watch that makes me happy when I wear it. Very few people notice that its a Tag which is fine cause my watch is for me. Personally I love most of the Omega designs and I really only like the Rolex Yacht Master. If I were going to spend $6000 I could get a yacht master or 2 really nice Omegas. I have loved the Seamaster with the blue face, and almost bought it but opted for the Tag with the blue face. I want my next watch to be an Omega and I plan to look for one when I go to St. Thomas. I think it really goes with what you want it for, to make other people say wow, or to make you smile. If a Rolex makes you happier then go for it, but if an Omega makes you happy get that. They are both great quality especially with the Omega in the Coaxil model. And like all automatic watches, they will not keep perfect time. However a watch that is GMT certified will keep pretty darn good time, but a standard automatic may be a little off. My Tag usually gets off about 2 minutes fast every few weeks. But its no problem, I just reset it.


----------



## Gallant

Mark from Plano said:


> Hmmm...here's my reaction to this:
> Rolex will hold its value very well relative to what you should (and undoubtedly will) pay for a Rolex which is pretty much the retail price...
> Rolex is what you buy if you're into impressing people.


Largely true, but the people you'll be impressing are not the sort you'd have difficulty impressing. Buy Nikes instead of EGs. The recognition by shop clerks and teenagers is higher.

Yes, a Rolex will hold it's value well. If you expect your accoutrements to be sold for rent money, it's the watch of choice. Let's be honest though, if retaining resale value is so important, you might as well bank the money and just get the time off your cell phone. That's a far better way to save and you won't have to worry about theft and scratches.


----------



## dwebber18

I agree, resale value is something for cars and houses not proper watches. Personally I want my Tag to last me a lifetime and when I can afford to expand my watch collection I want it to be turned into a family heirloom if I decide to have kids.


----------



## shirtguy

That's why the patek slogan is "you dont own a patek you just ........ for the next generation"


----------



## HoustonTEX

Do the folks here that own 300m seamasters have the black faced one or the blue james bond?


----------



## dwebber18

I don't own one but I prefer the blue face as it goes with more of my wardrobe. Thats why I purchased the Tag aquaracer with the blue face and bezel. On a side not my girlfriend loves the way it looks so it makes the ladies happy, haha


----------



## shirtguy

It seems like the Omega Seamaster is the better watch:icon_smile:


----------



## hcivic91

I was faced with the same decision several years ago while in Geneva. In the end I decided that for $5k I could not live with the sub-par Rolex bracelet. 

That is not to say I went for the Omega either, while I am fond of Omega divers I went for a Tudor Chronograph. If you are not familiar Tudor is a stepchild of Rolex, if you will. Tudors contain Rolex finished ETA movements and many other desirable Rolex attributes like the Oyster case. The bracelet is very similar to those found on Rolex models but the level of quality is much easier to accept when spending $2k and not $5k.

I purchased the watch to mark a special occasion so I do not plan on parting with. The true test will be in how the watch looks 10, 20, 50 years from now. Given that criteria, I am happy with the reputation Rolex has for service/refurbishment.

And my perspective on Rolex.  When I see someone wearing a Sub I think nice watch. When I see someone wearing a Seamaster I think discernment/sophistication. Just my $0.02.


----------



## dwebber18

HAHA, anyone can walk into a store and say give me a Rolex and show off for their friends, but you have to know something about watches to want an Omega, haha. Hope whatever you choose will give you more than a lifetime of pleasure


----------



## &Son

My first question to you is for what purpose will this watch be used? Are you a diver? Or is this just a watch and you happen to like dive watches? If you're a serious diver, there are tool watches that you will find significantly better than either the Sub or Seamaster; I say this having owned both. For diving I actually love the Baume et Mercier Capeland XXL (and it can be had for a relative STEAL).

The difference in the quality of the steel is minimal, the Rolex may be slightly harder, but it's negligible. The band on the Omega is unquestionably better. Both carry excellent movements. Yes, Rolex's is "in house" - but that doesn't necessarily mean better, just more rare. If an in-house movement is important to you in a dive watch, you could go for a Co-Axial Chronograph movement (cal 3313) in the Omega Planet Ocean. It's an outstanding dive watch, a chronograph, and carries what I regard as a great in-house movement.

You wont go wrong with either watch, but know that there are a lot of other great options in your price range as well. May I also suggest that if you are shrewd bargain hunter (and dont mind used) you can probably pick both up for the retail price of the Submariner. Why not both?


----------



## guitone

Resale: Of course you get more for a Rolex but not relative to how much more you paid. If you buy used you do well with either if you need to sell them.


----------



## MoosicPa

*Rolex or Omega*

I don't understand where this idea comes from that people wear a Rolex to impress people. I collect watches and currently in my collection have 10 Rolexes, some of which I have been wearing since 1999. In these 9 years of wearing Rolex I have yet to have ANYONE approach me and ask if I'm wearing a Rolex, or even notice the fact for that matter. The only comments I have received on one of my Rolex's was on my Blue faced Submariner, when an associated complimented me on the color of the watch, not knowing it was a Rolex. He just liked the color of the dial. So this idea that people are out there watching for Rolexes and being impressed by them seems fictitious to me, at least through my personal experiences. I like the Rolex brand because they produce a reliable and rugged watch that will serve you well for years to come.
I admit I do not have any Omega's in my collection because I think they are mediocre watches for the money. If you are looking for a nice watch in that price range, I would suggest Breitling, Oris or Ebel (which is producing some nice watch styles currently). Best of luck.


----------



## Owen Meany

Forget Rolex and Omega...This is THE Sport watch...










I love my GO!

I'll take a Chorpard. GO, GP, (many) IWCs and even a B&R over any Rolex and most Omegas....

Try a visit to www.timezome.com for futher watch education!

John


----------



## T-Bag

I love how so many come out of the woodwork to bash Rolex. Fine, they aren't for everybody - but they make a damn reliable watch, with timeless good looks (but for an inflated price). I've owned both Rolex and Omega and as I stated earlier - I believe Omega to be a better value. If I'm not paying, I pick Rolex. If I am paying the bill, I strongly consider Omega. I find each of their quality to be pretty much on par with each other and I do think there are better watches/values to be had.

Just like in clothes, there are some values to be had and some things that you pay a premium for because of the label. I find that to be the case with BOTH Rolex and Omega (less so with the latter).

NEWSFLASH - To those that act like Omega is some underground bargain that nobody knows about - it is not. While more under the radar than Rolex, when it comes to premium watches - I am willing to bet they run second to Rolex in name recognition (a baby Rolex if you will). If you want an under the radar bargain, look to Sinn (well, it used to be a year or two ago before the 30% price increase and the fact that they are ALL over watch forums now), Ball, Oris, Longines, Ebel, Tudor, etc. I would have put Breitling on the list, but they seem to be neck and neck with Omega for that second most popular brand.

If I was to pick up a dive watch right now, I'd look to Ball, Brietling, Longines or Oris (all can be had for under $2k):


----------



## T-Bag

Owen Meany said:


> Forget Rolex and Omega...This is THE Sport watch...


Don't know about THE sports watch, but frickin' beautiful! Niiiiiice!


----------



## Gallant

Owen Meany said:


> Forget Rolex and Omega...This is THE Sport watch...
> (Image GO)
> I love my GO!
> 
> I'll take a Chorpard. GO, GP, (many) IWCs and even a B&R over any Rolex and most Omegas....
> 
> Try a visit to www.timezome.com for futher watch education!
> 
> John


Agree completely, John. I've been lusting after that and the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms for a while, but I can't bring myself to spend money on another dive watch. I'm not a diver and I just want my watches to be subtle and fit under the cuff of my shirt.

That being said, I own a black-dialed Omega SMP that I wear while hiking and cycling. I used to have a SS/Plat Yachtmaster, but got tired of the bling and pimp jokes from several of my co-workers (a few were admitted watch collectors).


----------



## dwebber18

Rolexs are very fine watches indeed. The perception from most people is that those who wear a Rolex is pretentious(sp?). I have had a few friends with them and they are anything but, as the watches were given as gifts or faithfully saved for. Its a great thing to get a fine watch whether that be Rolex, Omega, Tag, Oris, or any other fine brand listed here by everyone. Just makes sure its a choice to make you happy because in the end its your cognitive dissonance that you have to put up with if its not exactly what you want; assuming you don't have the discretionary income that can just write off such a large purchase


----------



## Akajack

You should really look at all the watches, try them on and buy the one you like the best. All of the Omega's and Rolex watches can be regulated to a point of accuracy where you won't really notice any difference (until you get to the quartz battery powered watches).

I wore my IWC 3706 for years and it seemed to hold accuracy longer than my old Heuer Carrera and my Rolex datejust, but my submariner and GMT Master II are both just as accurate as the IWC.

I found the IWC to be the best value (a very nice chronograph for approx. USD 2,000 vs. a Rolex "Daytona" for USD 7,000 - used prices several years ago.)

I'm very happy with wearing mostly my Submariner and GMT on a daily basis, though an Omega "moon" watch has its appeal.

Oh and I buy all of my watches used, but am very careful of who I purchase from and the condition of the watch. I have all the proper tools to open rolex watches and know what to look for regarding counterfeits. You can get very good deals this way, but you must perform a bit of due dilligence and study up on what you're doing - or pay a couple of thousand more and just go to a dealer.


----------



## bigdukesix

^
I agree with the first sentence 100%. I own a rolex datejust (which some people may say is a cliche-but i could care less) am omega planet ocean and a vintage iwc. I where them all with pleasure and sentiment. so, pick which one floats your boat and your budget and don't look back. you can always add to your collection later. haha.


----------



## bdbroker

The correct answer is whatever you like best and can afford. I have a nice collection and currently own 2 Rolexes and 2 Omegas. My Rolexes are more comfortable on my wrists than the Omegas. The most comfortable Omega I owned was a Blue "Bond" Seamaster and I regretfully sold it. Pre owned can be a great value so long as you are comfortable with the seller and do your due diligence. Rolexes and Omegas can both take a beating probably more so than some of the other brands mentioned but I would still try to avoid beating on a watch you paid thousands for. There's something about a Patek, VC or Breguet that hardly screams beater to me. As for service- Rolex is not cheap. A basic service is currently $589 about double the price of Omega service. Rolex is also very strict with their policies regarding modification of the watch and using aftermarket parts. Keep all of this in mind. Either way you cannot go wrong.


----------



## Leather man

I had an Omega Seamaster for my 21st birthday many () years ago. I was very disappointed with it. It was unreliable ( yes it was a quartz movement - I am not that old!!). Omega repaired ( ie replaced the movement for me) twice, at great cost - half the price of a new watch.

When it broke down again I gave up!

I now wear Seiko!


----------



## radsag

I have the black faced 300m,just love it, the black color goes with anything!


Anthony


----------



## Mathew J

MoosicPa said:


> I don't understand where this idea comes from that people wear a Rolex to impress people. .......I admit I do not have any Omega's in my collection because I think they are mediocre watches for the money. If you are looking for a nice watch in that price range, I would suggest Breitling, Oris or Ebel (which is producing some nice watch styles currently). Best of luck.


Honestly are you serious? the reason why the idea is present is because so many people do this...I can't even keep count of the people whom I have met that were "impressed" by Rolex, the fact is the brand like Louis Vuitton, Mercedes, or Bose is a status symbol, the equivalent to Armani or Ferregamo of the men's clothing world, while you might not be impressed by someone wearing a Rolex the reality is that there are many, many who are.

Also to call Omega mediocre and then suggest Breitling, Oris or Ebel are in any way better is kinda funny, many Rolex owners don't like Omega because the product is as good, if not better in many ways for typically less money...however Omega offers things like true dress watches, central tourbillons, and other exquisite pieces that Rolex will never offer.


----------



## Owen Meany

BTW - Credit for the photo in my OP goes to M. Sandler. Not me. My GO has black behind the white big date numbers.

The braclet on this watch is simply sublime, I cannot beleive that people pay what they do for a brand of nearly the same retail cost but with a braclet of significantly lessser quiality. Not to "bash" Rolex, but they are the main offender in this regard and when ever I handle one, I am simply taken aback at how poorly the braclet is made on a plus $4,5, 6 or 7k watch. Granted the GO is reccomended for sale at $9K, but still a solid braclet should be expected on all "high end" watches.

Thanks, John


----------



## T-Bag

Mathew J said:


> however Omega offers things like true dress watches,


Cellini?



Mathew J said:


> and other exquisite pieces that Rolex will never offer.


Exquisite isn't really their game. Versatile sports watches that can take an extreme beating is a good portion of their business. Then you have Datejust and Day-Date that falls in between sport and dress.


----------



## udeshi

We have quite a few clients who come in with nice watches. The Rolex Submariner is the default option. I probably see as many green bezel ones as I do normal ones. I have lost count of the number of Daytonas I have seen in all their combinations (haven't seen a rose gold one yet though).

The one that impresses me the most is the beat up, used and abused watch that has been handed down from father to son, and that can be anything. They are wearing it not necessarily because it is a good watch, but it has a meaning to them. Buying a Rolex, Omega, XYZ is not an indication of your style, just your bank balance, and some times not even that, as you can put it on a credit card or pay in installments.

One doesn't need a wrist watch as we almost all have a cell phone with the time on it. And the last time I checked, most of us weren't going scuba diving with our clothes on. and if you are serious about diving, you don't want a steel strap anyway. Wearing a diving watch with a suit is akin to wearing work boots with a suit if you think about it from a philosophical point of view. You are wearing something that was designed for a specific purpose, but you are not using it for that purpose.

So my point is, get what you like, and expresses your personality. If you want to be a sheep, get the Omega. If you want to be a richer looking sheep, get the Rolex, an even richer sheep gets a gold daytona, and even richer a platinum patek nautilus. I am not saying these are bad watches, and there is nothing technically wrong with them, but if you are a member of this forum, and like clothes, and your appearance, and you want your personality to come through, then neither watch is the best choice given how widely available they are, nor are they necessarily value for money.

So to open myself up for grilling, I wear a IWC Fliegerchrono that I got for my 18th birthday, a IWC Portofino for my 21st birthday, two vintage Omega seamasters 1950s and 1960s, and the watch I wear the most, a 1968 Omega constellation that my father bought for my grandfather, which my father used when my grandfather passed away, which my father then gave to me. Is it waterproof, NO. Does it keep good time, after a monumentally expensive service by an expert, yes. Do I wear it for that reason, no.

And I am playing with the idea of a Rolex Sea Dweller Deepsea, because it is just that ridiculously big, and if I am going to play the game, might as well get the most silly one. I have no idea what I will use it for. I know I will never dive that deep, and I know I don't need it for the 100 feet dives I would do. 

Oh, and forget the submariner, go for the sea dweller, not much more money over a submariner, but a lot rarer, and in theory more durable. You will then be the black sheep.


----------



## nwiniewicz

I'll let my avatar speak for where I stand in this debate.:icon_smile_big:

I have two Omegas (including the PO above,) an Oris Mile complication, a Ollech & Wajs diver, and a Seiko Orange Monster. Love them all.

I think the point of Rolex vs Omega is a little futile. IMO, the watches are constructed very similarly, especially considering Omega's co-axial movement as others have highlighted.

Although I like Rolex, I do not own one as I do believe Omega is the better value. While they make a very decent watch, Rolex marketing has been incredible in building the name into what it is. I would speculate that 99% of the non-watch crowd would believe Rolex to be the be all, end all of watches. Watch enthusiasts recognize it for what it is, a solid choice in mid tier watches. The fact of the matter is that Rolex's highest price pieces are priced based on the amount of bling - gold and diamonds, not watch related details. On the other hand, their tool watches (i.e. Explorer, Submariner, GMT, etc) are solid entries but carry price premiums due to the Rolex name.

BTW, I absolutely love the GO shown above. This is one brand I would like to own one day.


----------



## Mathew J

T-Bag said:


> Cellini?
> 
> Exquisite isn't really their game. Versatile sports watches that can take an extreme beating is a good portion of their business. Then you have Datejust and Day-Date that falls in between sport and dress.


You know, I don't count the Cellini line simply because they are pretty horrible, and fortunately it seems everyone realizes this which is why they don't sell...from what I have seen and heard the new prince model has quite possibly one of the cheapest straps on it.

As for your second point, I agree and don't fault Rolex for that at all, but it was aimed at the previous posters point about Omega being mediocre for their price point, IMHO a ludicrous statement...if anything Omega is a steal for their street price and fair at their retail when compared to Rolex, the only area they can really stand to improve in is their after sales service, but then again I have had some really bad luck with Rolex when I had to use them so YMMV.


----------



## T-Bag

Mathew J said:


> You know, I don't count the Cellini line simply because they are pretty horrible, and fortunately it seems everyone realizes this which is why they don't sell...


Understood and agreed. For the money, give me a JLC Mater Control in SS and I'd never want another dress watch (except maybe an IWC Portuguese). 40mm, so not too small. Only 8.5mm thick, and can be had for about $4k.










[/Thread Jack]


----------



## MoosicPa

Mathew J said:


> Honestly are you serious?
> 
> Yes I'm serious or would not have posted!


----------



## Akajack

I do recommend IWC quite highly to people looking to "move up" in the watch world. The value and quality for the price are really unsurpassed in my mind. I also started out with a fliegerchronograph and still own the same watch.



udeshi said:


> ...
> 
> So to open myself up for grilling, I wear a IWC Fliegerchrono that I got for my 18th birthday, a IWC Portofino for my 21st birthday, ...


----------



## MarcDavidMiller

*If you are in a coup, wear a Rolex*

A friend of mine bought a Rolex for his sister around 25 years ago for her high school graduation because she was going on a trip to Nepal, India and a few other countries and he reasoned that if some emergency ever arose, a Rolex could be used as an effective gift to make new friends.

I've heard similar stories over the years in the former Soviet Union-one man even said that it got him to the border in Tajikistan during a civil war.

I would venture to say that among luxury brands, only Mercedes Benz has that level of recognition. Other watches may have a better reputation in elite circles, but tell me how many taxi drivers (who could get you to the border in a war zone) knows a Patek or IWC?

Incidentally, I usually wear a Poljot Sturmanski (Russian "Rolex") for different reasons.


----------



## oxford

Three weeks ago I purchased a brand new Rolex GMT II in gold and stainless with black dial at a cost of 10050.00. I got it because I wanted it. It is my second Rolex as I have the classic Oyster Perputual in gold and stainless with blue dial. We can go on and on about which make is better and on and on about the "Trying to Impress" thing. No one has ever approched me and said anything about my Rolex, not in the ten years I have owened the fist one and not in the three weeks I have owned the second one. Get this "Impress" thing out of your minds. One buys a Rolex because he or she wants it. Perhaps some folks cannot deal with that because of underlying jealousies which permeate into their overall lives, not just the watches. I also prefer Southwick suits and Alden shoes and no one has ever mentioned them either.


----------



## lichMD

*Rolex*

I'm going to add my 2 cents to this thread as I won a few Rolexes.
First of all, I wear them for myself, not for what anyone else thinks about them or what "a Rolex says about me".
I don't go around with my wrist in peoples faces so I don't get any of the "is that real" dreck that people often talk about.
My Rolexes are vintage pieces, a 40 year old GMT and a 20 year old Sub. They keep great time, losing about 4 and 7 seconds per day with regular use. They go through a fair amount of wear an tear and continue to look great. I've serviced each once in the past 10 years and as far as value retention goes, they have each appreciated since I purchased them. I actually wear my Kobold watches more often than my Rolexes, and ultimately they will go to my twins when they graduate college.
I've never owned an omega, so I can't comment.
Cheers


----------



## sjm

*rolex divers watch*

a travelled consultant-colleague, an environmental scientist, is a diver and in a fit of silliness i once asked him where to get the best deal on a rolex submariner. he said hong kong: "find two or three that you like, set them to precisely the same time, ideally when the shopkeeper is not watching. then return two days later. the ones that are still keeping correct time are the fakes."

indeed other rolex owners have said the same, noting how rapidly these timepieces need to be re-set. apparently, from early on, rolex advertised its ruggedness and not its accuracy.

i must say that in london rolexes are perhaps not very exclusive if one wants one to show off. more than a few taxi drivers wear them, although perhaps they are replicas.

apart from keeping my timex, heaven knows what i would do were i to win the lottery. most of my friends seem to like costly watches that 'do' lots of things, on many subdials, with extra hands and razzmatazz. what is the point of a costly watch, they ask rhetorically, if nobody can tell. alas, those are the kind that i like -- the vacheron constantines, breguets, pateks and others that are wafer thin and severely understated.


----------



## MoosicPa

My oldest Rolex was purchased new in 1999, and 9 years later it still keeps perfect time, as do my other nine. Also, it has yet to be serviced.


----------



## DuMont

I have heard that Rolex produces close to 1,000,000 watches per year. 

That is what makes them exclusive for everyone. 

There is usually an heir of "trying to impress", which comes out when someone says "I really like the XXX, but I still just want that Rolex" 

You have to ask yourself...what am I giving up if I don't go with the Rolex?

It's not the best movement, or most current style, or it's uniqueness, or anything about it's product, it will most likely be the "in the club" aspect that Rolex, and the sheeple have sold you on. 

Be powerful enough to get what you like. I like the Omega GMT, also Blancpain 50 fathoms, Girrard Perregaux, Ball, and Glycine.


----------



## magogian

A relative of mine has both watches and swears by the Rolex (referring to the watches in the initial postings).


----------



## rbstc123

*Mix up?*



nolan50410 said:


> It's a very tricky comparison. Rolex is obviously the better brand name. Rolex will hold its value better. Rolex has the better movement from what I've been told. Most people who buy Omegas buy the quartz ones. They are cheaper and keep better time. A good quartz Seamaster will run you $1900 while a submariner at best will cost you $5300. _My best friend is a huge watch guru and owns both Rolexes and Omegas. He says the Rolex is the watch you buy when you love watches and Omega is the watch you buy when you want to impress someone with a luxury status symbol type watch but don't care about how the watch functions._ I'm saving up for my first nice watch, and it will be an Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra. Beautiful watches.


I think this is the other way around.


----------



## shirtguy

isnt omega considered a cheap watch


----------



## shirtguy

you can justify spending 10,000 on a rolex but can you justify 10,000 on a omega?


----------



## Owen Meany

MarcDavidMiller said:


> Other watches may have a better reputation in elite circles, but tell me how many taxi drivers (who could get you to the border in a war zone) knows a Patek or IWC?


I work in a very proffessional environment, and nearly never am I complimented on my watches and even less often are they even noticed. Mainly because, I suspect, I like "high-end" names like my Glashutte Original (posted above), Chorpard MM GMT, Arnold & Sons to name a few...which are pretty uncomon in the "real world" not many people recognize these "names" and watches. I have even been accused of wearing a poor "Rolex knock off" while I had my GO Sports Evo on...(I loved that!!)

HOWEVER, around the corner at my local hot dog stand, Gene, the owner, recoginzed my GO right off the bat and later even notice my Chopard for what it was too...He is a fan and owner of a couple of Omegas and Seikos.

I found the interesting, but I have to say, not that suprising, especially for here in Santa Monica, CA

John


----------



## JerseyJohn

MarcDavidMiller said:


> I would venture to say that among luxury brands, only Mercedes Benz has that level of recognition. Other watches may have a better reputation in elite circles, but tell me how many taxi drivers (who could get you to the border in a war zone) knows a Patek or IWC?


Or would notice a Rolex?

The truth is, there is probably no item of clothing, except maybe your socks or underwear, that gets less notice than your watch. For one thing, most people couldn't tell a Rolex from a Timex from five feet away. And unless you're walking around flashing your watch in peoples' faces, they aren't going to notice your watch anyway. I wear a 1961 Accutron SpaceView. It gets noticed by someone maybe about once a year; and it has an exposed electronic movement with transistors, copper coils and a grass-green battery holder. If people don't notice a bizarre watch like that, who's going to notice a watch that looks no different from a few feet away than any $30 watch from Macy's?

Rolexes and Omegas are fine watches. Buy them because you want a fine watch. But if you think they're going to impress someone, you're probably doomed to disappointment.


----------



## Owen Meany

JerseyJohn said:


> I wear a 1961 Accutron SpaceView....


That is a cool watch....I would definatly notice it...I may even ask to look at it a bit closer.....

John


----------



## cdmoore1855

I really don't think you will be impressing anyone with either of these watch brands, they are both pretty far down the pyramid when it comes to prestigious timepieces.

If you want a more impressiving sporty watch, get an Audemars Piguet Royal Oak offshore but it will cost about maybe 5 or 6 times as much.


----------



## Jaxson613

I have a Rolex Datejust. Love it's looks , but it doesn't keep great time.
I was told by a watch repairman that Zodiac make Rolex's movements in Switzerland.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC

Jaxson613 said:


> I have a Rolex Datejust. Love it's looks , but it doesn't keep great time.
> I was told by a watch repairman that Zodiac make Rolex's movements in Switzerland.


Zodiac? Never heard of 'em. I thought pretty much all Rolex movements are in-house now. Zenith used to make some movements for Rolex, but I don't think that's the case anymore. For example, I think Rolex used to use the El Primero, but detuned its beat rate to 28.8KBPH.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

If you want to look classy wear an Omega
If you want to look like a blinging rapper wear a Rolex


----------



## cdcro

*Just like everything else here, you should buy what you like.* That being said I would rather spend my money on Marathon, Ball, Doxa, Oris, before buying a Rolex or Omega. I just would rather spend my money on a watch rather than someones ad budget. In fact, I'm purchasing another Ball today. Aviator GMT.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Well said sir!. And you mentioned my favourite watch of all time,bar none! Namely, Oris.


----------



## cdcro

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well said sir!. And you mentioned my favourite watch of all time,bar none! Namely, Oris.


 i really want a small second Oris diver with the blue dial, I just haven't pulled the trigger yet. So many watches, so little time!


----------



## robb01

Earl of Ormonde said:


> If you want to look classy wear an Omega
> If you want to look like a blinging rapper wear a Rolex


I very much disagree, I think Rolex has many styles which offer a classic look


----------



## Don Goldstein

A watchmaker once told me, "Whenever you buy a watch, consider that one day you might need the money and you may need to sell the watch." You may want to think about that regarding your Omega vs. Rolex decision. Rolex has great resale value and are very easy to sell.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

robb01 said:


> I very much disagree, I think Rolex has many styles which offer a classic look


I'm playing devil's advocate of course. However, I've never seen a Rolex that I like the look of and that makes me feel "I'd like one of those".
I've yet to see a Rolex that I haven't considered gaudy, vulgar, too large, too ugly!

If you can show me an attractive Rolex, because I admit I have never examined their range at any length, then I will be the first to admit that I like it, if I indeed do. Preferably with a leather strap please


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Don Goldstein said:


> Rolex has great resale value and are very easy to sell.


As does Omega, in fact in Europe Omegas are regarded very well and good quality second-hand examples are highly sought after.

I have a 1930s Omega pocket watch -never use it though!

Rolexes in my circle of friends and colleagues are considered the height of vulgarity, best left to the middle classes and villains!:icon_smile_wink:

The upper and working classes in Sweden wouldn't be seen dead in a Rolex!:icon_smile_wink:

My good friends Lord Ardbreck and Lord Thörn both wear an Omega. 
As does a Swedish Count of my acquaintance. 
My usual daily watch is either a Certina, a Tell, a Revue, or a Wendia - all mechanical and all Swiss.


----------



## Neal Shields

I don't know about Omega but my wife and I have worn Rolex for over 25 years. They can be very expensive to repair. My wife's watch broke a shaft and the repair bill was $800 and that has been 10 years ago when $800 was more than it is now.

My watch came with an "american" gold and stainless band and it stretched to the point that I was afraid to wear it for fear it would break and I would loose the watch. I replaced it with an all stainless band that didn't stretch as much.

They used to recomend a once a year cleaning which was about $300 but I found that the best way to keep one working was to leave it alone. I would take it in to have it cleaned and it would break about a week later because they didn't get something right.

The other thing they do to "prevent counterfits" is they won't ship a new part to a repairman till they have returned the old part. That can make repairs take much longer than necessary.

If you put an aftermarket band on your watch they won't work on it at all.

In conclusion, if you buy a watch and get over 25 years of use out of it, it is probably a pretty good watch but customer service doesn't seem to be their strong point. I transitioned my wife and I to Pateks about 2 years ago and they seem to be a lot more interested in pleasing the customer.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

cdcro said:


> i really want a small second Oris diver with the blue dial, I just haven't pulled the trigger yet. So many watches, so little time!


And I've been lusting after an Oris Big Crown with rose gold case for at least two decades...one day, one day! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## bigCat

Don Goldstein said:


> A watchmaker once told me, "Whenever you buy a watch, consider that one day you might need the money and you may need to sell the watch." You may want to think about that regarding your Omega vs. Rolex decision. Rolex has great resale value and are very easy to sell.


I can't agree with this approach.

If you think you will have to sell the watch one day, just get a less expensive watch and put the rest of the money elsewhere.

Some watches retain value better than others, but very few of them appreciate in value. Watches, like most other items discussed on this forum should be purchased for their utility, not resale value.
That said, knowing that your watch has a high resale value (not necessarily exercising the sale), provides some utility so some wearers (as seen by comments here).


----------



## Sui Generis

Han anyone considered the Rouchefoucauld? The thinnest water-resistant watch in the world. Singularly unique, sculptured in design, hand-crafted in Switzerland, and water resistant to three atmospheres. This is *the* sports watch of the '80s. Six thousand, nine hundred and fifty five dollars retail.


----------



## bigCat

Sui Generis said:


> Han anyone considered the Rouchefoucauld? The thinnest water-resistant watch in the world. Singularly unique, sculptured in design, hand-crafted in Switzerland, and water resistant to three atmospheres. This is *the* sports watch of the '80s. Six thousand, nine hundred and fifty five dollars retail.


Yeah. I got one. Last time I was in Philadelphia. For 50 bucks.

BTW, RIP - Bo Diddley.


----------



## Bertie Wooster

Sui Generis said:


> Han anyone considered the Rouchefoucauld? The thinnest water-resistant watch in the world. Singularly unique, sculptured in design, hand-crafted in Switzerland, and water resistant to three atmospheres. This is *the* sports watch of the '80s. Six thousand, nine hundred and fifty five dollars retail.


Oh I had one of those.....burn my finger though.....:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Mathew J

Neal Shields said:


> I don't know about Omega but my wife and I have worn Rolex for over 25 years. They can be very expensive to repair. My wife's watch broke a shaft and the repair bill was $800 and that has been 10 years ago when $800 was more than it is now.
> 
> My watch came with an "american" gold and stainless band and it stretched to the point that I was afraid to wear it for fear it would break and I would loose the watch. I replaced it with an all stainless band that didn't stretch as much.
> 
> They used to recomend a once a year cleaning which was about $300 but I found that the best way to keep one working was to leave it alone. I would take it in to have it cleaned and it would break about a week later because they didn't get something right.
> 
> The other thing they do to "prevent counterfits" is they won't ship a new part to a repairman till they have returned the old part. That can make repairs take much longer than necessary.
> 
> If you put an aftermarket band on your watch they won't work on it at all.
> 
> In conclusion, if you buy a watch and get over 25 years of use out of it, it is probably a pretty good watch but customer service doesn't seem to be their strong point. I transitioned my wife and I to Pateks about 2 years ago and they seem to be a lot more interested in pleasing the customer.


Omega has a wonderful service department for vintage pieces in Bienne, they send you back all of your worn parts, and they really try to please the customer.

Rolex makes rugged watches that are "good"...they were utilitarian in their day and due to popularity are now a status item.

Their approach to the customer from my experience is very standoff-ish. I had two which had visible flaws from the factory, the first they tried to fix and ruined in the process, the other they told me that the flaw was normal because of their hand finishing...now I don't buy them any longer and instead focus on Omega, I own one and briefly had another, neither exhibited the same defects as the Rolex pieces.

If you buy a Rolex then make sure you only deal with Rolex Beverly hills as NY is a joke, especially their service manager by the name of Kraff, possibly one of the worst customer service experiences I have had to date.

Service is now recommended every five years and baseline without parts is about $500+, most average around 800-1000 though.

Though if you want people to notice your watch, go with a Rolex...I get more comments (mostly awkward) when I wear mine than anything else.


----------



## MoosicPa

Neal Shields said:


> I don't know about Omega but my wife and I have worn Rolex for over 25 years. They can be very expensive to repair. My wife's watch broke a shaft and the repair bill was $800 and that has been 10 years ago when $800 was more than it is now.
> 
> In conclusion, if you buy a watch and get over 25 years of use out of it, it is probably a pretty good watch but customer service doesn't seem to be their strong point. I transitioned my wife and I to Pateks about 2 years ago and they seem to be a lot more interested in pleasing the customer.


Neal, if you think an $800.00 repair bill from Rolex was expensive, wait until your Patek needs a service......you'll need a second Mortgage on the house!


----------



## BareTrap

*Impress With A Corum*



JerseyJohn said:


> Or would notice a Rolex?
> 
> The truth is, there is probably no item of clothing, except maybe your socks or underwear, that gets less notice than your watch. For one thing, most people couldn't tell a Rolex from a Timex from five feet away. And unless you're walking around flashing your watch in peoples' faces, they aren't going to notice your watch anyway. I wear a 1961 Accutron SpaceView. It gets noticed by someone maybe about once a year; and it has an exposed electronic movement with transistors, copper coils and a grass-green battery holder. If people don't notice a bizarre watch like that, who's going to notice a watch that looks no different from a few feet away than any $30 watch from Macy's?
> 
> Rolexes and Omegas are fine watches. Buy them because you want a fine watch. But if you think they're going to impress someone, you're probably doomed to disappointment.


Right. Be happy because you love your watch and forget about trying to impress anyone. For what it's worth I always considered Corum to be the watch to wear to impress "someone in the know." Rolex has become almost pedestrian, although those of us who own them (myself included, SS Sumbariner Date) may not always be inclined to admit it. I do, however, feel good about paying less than three grand in '95 for a watch than retails for over five now. Nice considering the state of things currently. :icon_smile:


----------



## Carlton-Browne

I have been absolutely in love with Omega ever since I saw an exhibition in Berlin at the KaDeWe that included T.E. Lawrence's trench watch. Curiously the thing that drew me to it was its stupendous size (it's fundamentally a silver pocket watch with lugs soldered on) which is the feature of the average modern Rolex that I dislike so much.

It strikes me that there are too many factors to be able to rate one watch simply as better than the other though, as has been stated before - and I think this is a theme that resonates with a lot of forumites, I do prefer to know that my money is paying for the supplier's goods rather than their marketing department and other associated air-ware.


----------



## Sese

Any mechanical watch should be valued by it's movement first. If I wanted to impress anybody or just myself I'd pick some unusual movement. Second would be the form factor and materials, dial and the brand would come last. 
It's a pitty but almost all of today's gent's chronos are driven by the very same -technically sound- standard swiss movement. Anything different would make a watch interesting for me. Hopefully I'm not boring you with my philosophies over here. 
The watch I wear now? A Sinn 156 with a Lemania 5100. Not specifically complex or expensive but little unusual today.


----------



## maltess

The brazalet of the sea master is way beeter than the submariner one. I actally only like one model from rolex in terms of design, the daytona. Rolex is pretty much a brand for people that suddently makes money and want to impress people who don´t know about watches. I think omega is a more interesting brand in terms of design and price-value relation. The really nice watch brands, those who impress people who know about watches are patek phillipe, vacheron-constantin, blancpain (cherck out the fifty phatons diver), Girard perregeaux, breguet, frank muller, Jaeger le Coultre and others. All these are very expensive and much more beatifull than rolex. There are some less expensive brands like IWC, Montblanc, Cuervo y Sobrinos, Zenith and others much nicer than rolex and similar in price.


----------



## stylesnob

shirtguy said:


> Besides name brand and price which watch is better omega seamaster or the rolex submariner?


Not sure how you can define value per dollar? If you are looking for something that keeps the re-sale value, then the Rolex will do better.

I suggest you post this question at a forum exclusively for watches:
https://www.watchtalkforums.info/forums/


----------



## MoosicPa

maltess said:


> Rolex is pretty much a brand for people that suddently makes money and want to impress people who don´t know about watches.


Well, thanks for your moronic insight. Do you have any sources to back this conclusion of yours? Or did you come up with it all by yourself? The ignorance and stupidity of people never cease to amaze me. To try and classify an entire group of people as pretentious assholes because they own a certain watch brand is beyond belief.


----------



## Mathew J

MoosicPa said:


> Well, thanks for your moronic insight. Do you have any sources to back this conclusion of yours? Or did you come up with it all by yourself? The ignorance and stupidity of people never cease to amaze me. To try and classify an entire group of people as pretentious assholes because they own a certain watch brand is beyond belief.


While I have heard this criticism before I must say I cannot disagree with the OP, Rolex is the brand that "impresses" those ignorant of other arguably better brands, and I think that a good number of sales are by those who come into money and want something that is a display of such. The number of people who are truly "interested" in Rolex for what they are historically/technically one can assume account for only a tiny fraction of their sales.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The upper and working classes in Sweden wouldn't be seen dead in a Rolex!:icon_smile_wink:


I have heard that the working class in Sweden is small and therefore famously exclusive, but I think the real reason that their members and those of their upper class friends would not be caught dead in a Rolex is pretty obvious -- Swedes are not so foolish as to fail to remove a fine watch off a dead man. Beats working for it.


----------



## maltess

MoosicPa said:


> Well, thanks for your moronic insight. Do you have any sources to back this conclusion of yours? Or did you come up with it all by yourself? The ignorance and stupidity of people never cease to amaze me. To try and classify an entire group of people as pretentious assholes because they own a certain watch brand is beyond belief.


Well, maybe you got offended here because you belong, to that group, I don´t know. I don´t know either about your intelectaul level and culture, but I don´t think is going to be a great deal, anyway, yoy can expreess your ideas here , the same than me, and does not include insults. For me is pretty amazing too, how easy is for certain people to insult others trough the internet in instead of a real face to face insult, I wonder why.


----------



## noble

*I would rather die than wear an Omega.*

As for Rolex, I own a few because evryone should have at least one (unwritten collectors rule) but both brands, and watches you mention, are of the same caliber......it's just a question of personal estetiques.

noble


----------



## MoosicPa

maltess said:


> Well, maybe you got offended here because you belong, to that group, I don´t know. I don´t know either about your intelectaul level and culture, but I don´t think is going to be a great deal, anyway, yoy can expreess your ideas here , the same than me, and does not include insults. For me is pretty amazing too, how easy is for certain people to insult others trough the internet in instead of a real face to face insult, I wonder why.


First *you* insult all Rolex owners as being pretentious asses who only own their watches to show-off, and when I point out the fact that your assumptions are moronic, you get insulted.....Hmmmmm......of course you still fail to provide any evidence to support your conclusion.....Hmmmm......and as for face to face - anytime you want!


----------



## Mathew J

noble said:


> As for Rolex, I own a few because evryone should have at least one (unwritten collectors rule) but both brands, and watches you mention, are of the same caliber......it's just a question of personal estetiques.
> 
> noble


rather die than wear omega, was this in jest or serious? if the latter then I feel sorry for you noble.


----------



## noble

*Obviously I would not rather die.*



Mathew J said:


> rather die than wear omega, was this in jest or serious? if the latter then I feel sorry for you noble.


No need to feel sorry for anyone. Neither Rolex nor Omega are very good watches in the sense of an artistic nature....both are produced in the same fashion of a Seiko. Rolex has the upper hand in marketing so everyone and their brother wants one without really knowing why.

My wife and son own an Omega each but I wont wear one and its' my right not to. No artistry in Omega, no prestigious background, nothing that could possibly compare it to a major house. Its' considered a teenagers watch where I live and where I come from, France, Omega never enters into anyone's' conversation.

You'll never see me wearing Paul Smith either but you will never see me passively aggressive towards any member here if they choose to do so. I thank you for your insult....I just got out of bed and insults are a great way to start the day.

Happy New Year.

noble


----------



## Solomander

cdcro said:


> i really want a small second Oris diver with the blue dial, I just haven't pulled the trigger yet. So many watches, so little time!


I was on the verge of buying an Oris big crown until I realized that the crystal was acrylic. Too bad.

Joel


----------



## rbstc123

T-Bag said:


> If you want the best value in an automatic dive watch you don't have to look any further than a Sieko Monster or Samurai. For $150-225, you can't beat them. Cult-like following, choice of many professional divers, tough as nails, plenty of heft... workhorses, plain and simple.


+1
I own the "Black Monster" and the "Orange Monster". 
Workhorses. 
They are solid. You could beat a shark to death with them.
Neither have ever seen the ocean.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## noble

*Nice!*



rbstc123 said:


> +1
> I own the "Black Monster" and the "Orange Monster".
> Workhorses.
> They are solid. You could beat a shark to death with them.
> Neither have ever seen the ocean.:icon_smile_big:


I'd really like one or the other. I have a Casio diver's watch that has served me well these past 12 years or so. I use it for..well..diving. Time for a new one though.

A Seiko Monster would be cool.

noble


----------



## rbstc123

Thank you.
Take the plunge.
I used to work for Seiko at their Company Store.
You can get the monsters for a really good price during holiday sales. May want to look up the closest COmpany Store location and give them a call. You may get a good deal!

Interesting story: I had a customer come in one day and he was looking at both these watches. I spent about an hour just visiting with him and sharing our love for automatic watches. i tol;d him how much I really wanted one of these but financially it wasn't in the cards at that time. He left and returned with something in his hand. He had the "Orange Monster" in his hand. At first I was really confussed. I thought he had stolen it and was returning to prove a point regarding our security. Turns out his son, who was stationed in Japan, had given it to him as a gift. (He was telling the truth because at the bottom of a Seiko sold in the US, below the 6, the origin of the manufacturer of the movement has to be listed. If it is made in Japan to be sold in Japan then the movement doesn't have to be listed. This watch did not have the manufacturer's origin on it.) He told me to take it. It was a gift for being well informed and spending time with him without being a pushy salesman. After telling him multiple times I could not take it he finally grabbed my hand and put it in it then began to leave. He really wanted me to have it. I am so gracious to this date. This is one of my favorite stories. It makes me feel good everytime I tell it.
Since then I have moved on but I am still in sales. I always try to use this as a point of reference for selling. If you stand behind the product you are selling then it sells itself. Most importantly, genuine customer service is about the customer and sometimes just having a nice conversation with the customer. 

Sorry If I just bored you to death.

This story makes my orange monster stand for way more than a solid time piece. It literally marks a special time in my life.

Does anyone need a tissue?:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Mathew J

noble said:


> No need to feel sorry for anyone. Neither Rolex nor Omega are very good watches in the sense of an artistic nature....both are produced in the same fashion of a Seiko. Rolex has the upper hand in marketing so everyone and their brother wants one without really knowing why.
> 
> My wife and son own an Omega each but I wont wear one and its' my right not to. No artistry in Omega, no prestigious background, nothing that could possibly compare it to a major house. Its' considered a teenagers watch where I live and where I come from, France, Omega never enters into anyone's' conversation.
> 
> You'll never see me wearing Paul Smith either but you will never see me passively aggressive towards any member here if they choose to do so. I thank you for your insult....I just got out of bed and insults are a great way to start the day.
> 
> Happy New Year.
> 
> noble


I can somewhat understand the comment about artistry, but prestigious background? maybe not in the sense of Patek, but their horological accomplisments and position in the past one would think is more than enough to solidify them as one of the most influential throughout history, only tainted in the 70s and 80s and now again making their presence known with the inclusion of the daniels escapement and the engineering marvels brought about in their new double barrell co axial 8500 series movments, not to mention their central tourbillon...

Sounds as if you are a bit more taken with percieved status and ornate finish work than real engineering prowess, especially since you seem to imply that you have and would own/wear a Rolex simply because of their stature amongst the ignorant.

So then we can assume you only bother yourself with the likes of FP Journe and the like?


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC

rbstc123 said:


> Interesting story: I had a customer come in one day and he was looking at both these watches. I spent about an hour just visiting with him and sharing our love for automatic watches. [ABRIDGED]


Wow, that is a wonderful story....


----------



## noble

*In the past, when I was younger, yes.*

I do have my name on a list for a Journe Zodiac Watch but who knows if I'll get it?

I've learned to buy what I like and not worry so much about the brand. What is a must is that when I touch the watch I can "feel" the quality of workmanship. I love art and I like to have fine art on my wrist everywhere I go even if no one around me understands what I'm wearing.

Rolex is a fine watch but so is Seiko. I have a few and am thinking about a Milguauss just because I like the look and feel of it.

I used to drive Volvo but now am buying BMW. They both cost the same and are of very good quality but I will admit it does feel good that everyone recognises a BM while few know the value of a Volvo. The same with Rolex. So I'm humane...should I be shot?

You seem to know watches so I know you understand what I'm saying...few collectors there are that don't share the same imperfections as I.

I had a Patek Nautilus, perhaps the first person in the country to have one from an AD. I got rid of it because the quality of the bracelet didn't suit me...I'm not going to wear it just because its a Patek. My wife has been talking a lot about the 5980. I think she got it for me as a holiday gift. I really hope not because I'll have to wear it or risk hurting her.

I wont go into detail but I don't have that much time left to be with my children. My doctor tells me to get things in order. I don't have time to worry about what others are thinking about my personal choices. I love Vermeer, Monet and Turner but don't like Picasso at all. Does this make me bad? I don't think a Picasso lover is bad because of his choice.....we just have a different eye about art.

In absolute reality time is meaningless but for now I will measure it in my own way.

noble

noble


----------



## noble

*Nothing could be less boring.*



rbstc123 said:


> Thank you.
> Interesting story: I had a customer come in one day and he was looking at both these watches. I spent about an hour just visiting with him and sharing our love for automatic watches. i tol;d him how much I really wanted one of these but financially it wasn't in the cards at that time. He left and returned with something in his hand. He had the "Orange Monster" in his hand. At first I was really confussed. I thought he had stolen it and was returning to prove a point regarding our security. Turns out his son, who was stationed in Japan, had given it to him as a gift. (He was telling the truth because at the bottom of a Seiko sold in the US, below the 6, the origin of the manufacturer of the movement has to be listed. If it is made in Japan to be sold in Japan then the movement doesn't have to be listed. This watch did not have the manufacturer's origin on it.) He told me to take it. It was a gift for being well informed and spending time with him without being a pushy salesman. After telling him multiple times I could not take it he finally grabbed my hand and put it in it then began to leave. He really wanted me to have it. I am so gracious to this date. This is one of my favorite stories. It makes me feel good everytime I tell it.
> Since then I have moved on but I am still in sales. I always try to use this as a point of reference for selling. If you stand behind the product you are selling then it sells itself. Most importantly, genuine customer service is about the customer and sometimes just having a nice conversation with the customer.
> 
> Sorry If I just bored you to death.
> 
> This story makes my orange monster stand for way more than a solid time piece. It literally marks a special time in my life.
> 
> Does anyone need a tissue?:icon_smile_big:


Great story and a wonderful additude you have. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

noble


----------



## Raistlin

Don't concern yourself with the brand, these discussions are futile. Both companies make a good watch, nothing great. I like my Omega Speedmaster, it's the moonphase version with a cream colored dial and blue markers with broad arrow hands, and moonwatch movement. 

I think the Rolex sub is overpriced for what it is, my Seiko "Sumo" stands up to it pretty well at 1/10 the cost, the Sumo is also dead-on accurate to +/- 1 second per day. That said, I like the style of the Sub a bit more, so maybe I'll get one some day, but other watches are calling more loudly  I think something in the JLC master series may be my next watch, or something from Glashutte Original like the Panomatic Lunar.


----------



## kngrimm

"In absolute reality time is meaningless but for now I will measure it in my own way."

I think I get what you meant... but it still doesn't make sense. Either way, you don't have much time, so it's meaningless. 

I don't think anyone faults you for enjoying something... I think most of the time it's 'how' the person came to the conclusion. People attack the 'logic'. 

Anyway, boards like this can be inane... I'm off to have a beer and smile, hope you have a wonderful time with your kids and wife. Life is definitely worth living. 

Good luck


----------



## Zafonic

Agree with the last two posters - topics like watch brand A vs. watch brand B can be argued indefinitely. Most manufacturers make nice watches and in the end it mostly comes down to aesthetics.

I read lots of posts from people who hate various brands - I don't really understand how someone can 'hate' a brand, and I think this stems from jealousy or snobbery.

From Seiko to Rolex to Audemars Piguet you have many superb brands, all at different price levels. Some are designed as tool watches; others have amazing decoration and complications. There is no 'best' watch. It all depends on what the person likes and can afford to spend.

I've been into Rolex mainly and do love the brand, but I have a great respect and like many other brands like JLC, Omega, IWC, VC, AP, PP, Lange.....I could go on and on. The time when you realise you are mature is when you can be open minded and accept other possibilities....

Btw - MathewJ.....long time no see from an ex-Explorer owner :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## amlai

rbstc123 said:


> I own the "Black Monster" and the "Orange Monster".
> Workhorses.
> They are solid. You could beat a shark to death with them.
> Neither have ever seen the ocean.:icon_smile_big:


Yes, they are solid. I have a "Black Monster" myself. It has given me a number of good years of service. However, I also own a Omega Planet Ocean and there is absolutely no comparison. Yes, you could beat a shark to death with either one, but my Omega is far more accurate.

My Seiko ran within standard tolerances, but if I recall, mine was about +30sec per day. I had another Seiko dive watch that used the same movement and it performed similarly. I did in fact manage to cause that one to stop working. (I used to wear it rock climbing and maybe I bashed it around one too many times.)

Of course, they all tell time with fairly good accuracy. It depends on how much you care to pay for that accuracy. The Omega is clearly better made, but one does pay a heck of a lot more for it. (On the flip side, if accuracy is what one is going for, then just pick up a quartz watch.)


----------



## maltess

MoosicPa said:


> First *you* insult all Rolex owners as being pretentious asses who only own their watches to show-off, and when I point out the fact that your assumptions are moronic, you get insulted.....Hmmmmm......of course you still fail to provide any evidence to support your conclusion.....Hmmmm......and as for face to face - anytime you want!


First , I wont be losing more time with you, so don´t bother to answer because I wont read it, send me a personal message in instead. If you are up for face to face I live in Spain and waiting for you, althought I may travel to the states this summer, maybe we can meet there. Although I think 
P.D.
I never called anyone a pretentious ass but I could call you a few things, but like I told you I don´t insult or critisize people in the internet because is not real


----------



## flash harry

"but like I told you I don´t insult or critisize people in the internet because is not real". 

you mean to say that this wonderful medium known as the "internet" is just a figment of our imaginations!?


----------

