Originally posted by: Workin'
Anyone who knows anything about fine watches knows that functionally there is no difference between Rolex and Omega. If anything, Omega has the superior movement and quality. I was in the same position, trying to decide between a Submariner and Seamaster... After doing tons of research I got an Omega Seamaster, it's a technically better watch than a Submariner and a lot less expensive. With Rolex, you are paying a lot for the name. Which may be fine depending on what you are really looking for.
A big problem with having a Rolex is that there are so many fakes out there that everyone thinks yours is fake, too. I didn't like the idea of having to explain to everyone who asks that no, it's not a fake. I'd rather explain the Omega story if someone asks. Omega's the only watch that's been to the moon, for example.
As soon as I have some spare change I'm buying another Omega, this time a Speedmaster to go with my Seamaster.
Working would you care to share some of your sources for your assessment?? especially when you say:
If anything, Omega has the superior movement and quality.
Honestly I have been interested in high end watches for over four years, known watchmakers and talk to other enthusiasts/collectors on a daily basis and at best they would say that the new Co-Axial movements are *on par* if not slightly more advanced than the current Rolex 31XX calibre movements...the ETA 2892 in the Seamaster is a pretty generic and basic movement, the only real *positive* one could see over the Rolex 31XX calibre is the use of a Ball Bearing rotor but even that is subjective...the Rolex uses a balance bridge vs the balance cock of the ETA, a free sprung microregulated balance again vs the fixed balance cock of the ETA and the Rolex also has a breguet overcoil and is of a much thicker design which all in all makes it more durable and more accurate over a longer period of time....
Again, I have read tons of reviews on the subject and the only conclusive thing that can be said is the Omega is a nice watch for the money, as to which is *better* than the other usually it is a highly subjective however when push comes to shove the Rolex is slightly better of a watch, not only from a collector enthusiast standpoint but also just better made (higher grade Stainless steel used, white gold used for markers and hands, manufacture calibre movement vs. generic ETA for Omega, balance bridge, overcoil, free sprung balance and other features only found in very very high end watches whereas Omega uses a standard flat spring, balance cock and the 2892 is the same movement found in many watches costing $500 or less). True out of the box both watches are COSC certified and keep time very well, however over time the Rolex design will prove to be more accurate, their service in the US is better, and there are little things they do that others don't which just make them nicer...I agree alot of their price has to do with name and look but again that is the case with anything really....
Also with re. Fakes, there are plenty for Omega as well as Rolex, just take a stroll down canal street or downtown DC, someone even returned one to a local Costco and they thought it was a real Omega....every popular brand has fakes.....
With Re. Omega and the Moon, it is interesting to note that the Speedy "moon" watch they currently sell isn't the model that actually went to the moon, the movement in it is different from the original calibre and there are other changes....each brrand has their piece of history...for Omega the moon tests and such are huge along with their chronometer trials, for Rolex their ascent of Everest along with Comex use of the Sub and Pan Am's use of the GMT were awesome....
Each brand has their pluses and minuses...the major difference is that the Rolex of today is the Rolex that was around from the beginning....the Omega of Today is just a sub division of Swatch...the Old Omega was bought out in the late 70s and really is nothing like the old company IMHO