Rolex Submariner or Omega Seamaster?

[bozack]

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

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I laugh my ass off when I see some dumb Sonofbitch wearing a $2000+ watch that can't keep as accuate time as a 5 cent quartz movement. Why? To impress?

Zebo either you get it or you don't as I said before...why pay good money for a fountain pen when a bic writes just as well?? why buy nice sterling or gold cufflinks when you can get some plated ones or heck regular buttons will hold your cuffs together and they are free...why buy your suits from Brooks Brothers when you can go to Men's warehouse for less than half the price....why drive a porsche when a Kia will get you from A-b....personally I like watches, pens, cufflinks and other old school things because they are nostalgic...they make me think of a time when things were slower and not as high tech....I like owning some things that have changed little over time just as I like owning things that change on a daily basis....I think it is good to have balance

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Jmman
This is the watch that gets me drooling........

Patek

Or this one........Patek

What in the whole FVCK????

That's a watch, right? And judging from the comments on mechnical watches it's a watch that ain't even very good at it's job?
And it doesn't come with a portable nuclear device? Or a fat guy to carry you around all day? Or something?

It's a stinkin' watch for 52.000 USD???

Hey Sunner,

in the world of watches that is considered rather cheap, there are many pieces that are far more expensive than that, I have seen more than a few which sell for millions....pretty insane.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Zebo
I laugh my ass off when I see some dumb Sonofbitch wearing a $2000+ watch that can't keep as accuate time as a 5 cent quartz movement. Why? To impress?

Zebo either you get it or you don't as I said before...why pay good money for a fountain pen when a bic writes just as well?? why buy nice sterling or gold cufflinks when you can get some plated ones or heck regular buttons will hold your cuffs together and they are free...why buy your suits from Brooks Brothers when you can go to Men's warehouse for less than half the price....why drive a porsche when a Kia will get you from A-b....personally I like watches, pens, cufflinks and other old school things because they are nostalgic...they make me think of a time when things were slower and not as high tech....I like owning some things that have changed little over time just as I like owning things that change on a daily basis....I think it is good to have balance

Hey just to be clear, and I was mainly j/k, this does'nt mean I think someone shouldn?t be free to spend ten thousand dollars for a watch but I'm free to laugh my ass off at them for doing so as well. What I question is the modivation and prudence along with value. As I already noted, a quartz watch is not just equal, it's superior in all functions. It keeps more accurate time, costs $10-$50, and battery replacement costs about $2-5 while sending an Omega automatic into Omega for a cleaning every 5 years will run you $200+ in addition to the high initial cost. Then you have the iridium which loses it's luminance long before the batteries of a timex wear out. Only way I think an Omega is superior is the corundum crystal which is very resistant to scratching compared to glass.

Then you have the modivation. Sure it's nice to have nice things. But I'm from the millionaire next door school, in addition to saving more saving over ones lifetime you avoid all things going with the "image" of having, including Debt, lawsuits, hanger-ons etc. while building your equity. Expensive watches, jewlery, cars, furs, suits, pens never count as assests on any financial report in the free world. So IMO the only modivation is image, which I think can be surmised in the empty joy of owning things you don?t need so you can look down of down on the lesser mortals who lack your ?ability?. Another way of saying it is pride/greed/lust...speaking of old school...three of the seven deadly sins ya know


BTW- I go to thailand for my suits.. $60 and equivant to Armani/Brooks Brothers, $7 for custom shirts, still use bics cause I chew them, and cars well.. almost everything is a better value than a kia...if you value your life. E=1/2 mv^2 kias don't have m or v when hitting another vechile. In other words you be better off hitting a brick wall in a kia..at least no negative acceleration would happen..

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Jmman
This is the watch that gets me drooling........

Patek

Or this one........Patek

What in the whole FVCK????

That's a watch, right? And judging from the comments on mechnical watches it's a watch that ain't even very good at it's job?
And it doesn't come with a portable nuclear device? Or a fat guy to carry you around all day? Or something?

It's a stinkin' watch for 52.000 USD???

Hey Sunner,

in the world of watches that is considered rather cheap, there are many pieces that are far more expensive than that, I have seen more than a few which sell for millions....pretty insane.

Damn...I can see spending that kind of money on a car, but a freaking watch?
Oh well, guess I just don't get "it", just like chicks never understand beer

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Hey just to be clear, and I was mainly j/k, this does'nt mean I think someone shouldn?t be free to spend ten thousand dollars for a watch but I'm free to laugh my ass off at them for doing so as well. What I question is the modivation and prudence along with value. As I already noted, a quartz watch is not just equal, it's superior in all functions. It keeps more accurate time, costs $10-$50, and battery replacement costs about $2-5 while sending an Omega automatic into Omega for a cleaning every 5 years will run you $200+ in addition to the high initial cost. Then you have the iridium which loses it's luminance long before the batteries of a timex wear out. Only way I think an Omega is superior is the corundum crystal which is very resistant to scratching compared to glass.

Then you have the modivation. Sure it's nice to have nice things. But I'm from the millionaire next door school, in addition to saving more saving over ones lifetime you avoid all things going with the "image" of having, including Debt, lawsuits, hanger-ons etc. while building your equity. Expensive watches, jewlery, cars, furs, suits, pens never count as assests on any financial report in the free world. So IMO the only modivation is image, which I think can be surmised in the empty joy of owning things you don?t need so you can look down of down on the lesser mortals who lack your ?ability?. Another way of saying it is pride/greed/lust...speaking of old school...three of the seven deadly sins ya know


BTW- I go to thailand for my suits.. $60 and equivant to Armani/Brooks Brothers, $7 for custom shirts, still use bics cause I chew them, and cars well.. almost everything is a better value than a kia...if you value your life. E=1/2 mv^2 kias don't have m or v when hitting another vechile. In other words you be better off hitting a brick wall in a kia..at least no negative acceleration would happen..

Hey Zebo that is cool, thought from the tone of your earlier message that you were serious...with regards to motivation and prudence with owning expensive luxury items well I guess that it is really dependant on the buyer and what drove them to buy such things, as I said for myself both of my parents had Rolex watches and really enjoyed them, I love the classic look and am not the type of person who would buy an imitation or a copy in the sake of saving money, I also enjoy things that aren't "disposable" and that represent a time when people valued what they worked for and earned....you cite a $10 Timex as a viable option, and sure from a timekeeping only point of view the Timex is as good if not better, but you won't be able to pass on that timex as an heirloom to your children and you might be lucky if it lasts you more than ten years...sure you can go out and buy a new one, heck a thousand new ones for less than the cost of some fine watches but that really isn't the point, also most if not all cheap black platics (cbps) look like crap and the new material they are using (Superluminova) lasts a very very long time much longer than the tritium they were using before for luminesence....like I said though, little of this decision has to do with logic or prudence...


What I really want to comment on is your "millionare next door" remark, I often see this book referenced here, and while I have not read it personally I have had discussions with others on its subject and find it really interesting that some would chose to live this lifestyle, don't get me wrong I think it is great if you can do it, but I am more of the mentality of "you live only once so you must live a little", also In think it is possible to have a clean image of having nice things, yet not being overly showy with ones wealth...for example if the two pieces above were all gold or had a good deal of gold in them then they might fit your "image" concerns, but as noted by a few they look really plain....I think you might have real issues with those who have some money and are not afraid to spend it reading the last few lines of your post, almost as if you assume everyone who buys nicer things is automatically putting themselves into debt....while I don't think there are a few people who do so, and I am certain there are more than a few who do it for image...one must always remember there are others who do it for more than just image...just like why spend a few grand on a high end computer when a chap one works almost as well...??

 

[Jmman]

One thing that people don't think about is that a Rolex will last your entire lifetime. If you buy a Citizen every few years for $200 because the watch breaks, the crystal breaks, etc the money will add up over time to almost the same price as a Rolex........

 

[Sunner]

I have a watch that I never use(I find wrist watches very uncomfortable), it's a Regal, don't know what brand that is, some cheap junk I bought on a boat for $25.
It keeps time admirably well, it looks nice(not too unlike the Omega with the blue dial above), and actually looks rather expensive

It's lasted me 5 years so far, still working fine.

Now there's a nice watch!

 

[luckydragon]

if money is not an option get a Rolex Stainless Steel Daytona, the wait list is over 2yrs but you can probably buy a spot off of someone at the top of the list Its a beautiful watch and even if you dont like it you can still make a profit from selling it back off.

 

[ScottMac]

The Daytona was a Fad Watch for the ignorant Yups a couple years ago. It's not even a Rolex calibre (movement). It doesn't have a Date window ... just a chronograph that rarely used ... coool buttons, mostly worthless for the masses.

In general, IMHO, the Daytona is the worst choice possible in the Rolex line.

If you need accuracy (better than a couple seconds a DAY), take a look at the one quartz model that Rolex made(with the "OysterQuartz" movement): Accuracy of Quartz, styling & durability of a Rolex. Nice watch. Not to mention all the folks that'll tell you it's not a real Rolex because the second hand doesn't sweep correctly.

Then you get to slap them up side the head with the papers and tell the ignorant (insert proper insult here) to go kiss a rock.

FWIW

Scott

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
The Daytona was a Fad Watch for the ignorant Yups a couple years ago. It's not even a Rolex calibre (movement). It doesn't have a Date window ... just a chronograph that rarely used ... coool buttons, mostly worthless for the masses.

In general, IMHO, the Daytona is the worst choice possible in the Rolex line.

If you need accuracy (better than a couple seconds a DAY), take a look at the one quartz model that Rolex made(with the "OysterQuartz" movement): Accuracy of Quartz, styling & durability of a Rolex. Nice watch. Not to mention all the folks that'll tell you it's not a real Rolex because the second hand doesn't sweep correctly.

Then you get to slap them up side the head with the papers and tell the ignorant (insert proper insult here) to go kiss a rock.

FWIW

Scott

ScottMac, obviously you have not been paying attention to watches and watch buying trends in the past few years...here is a little info for you.

The Daytona is still one of, if not the most difficult to obtain sports Rolex there is, there is generally a 2 year wait if you want to buy one at the list price of $6,075 however most dealers will not sell it to you unless you have bought alot of stuff from them, or put a few thousand down and let them earn interest on it... the only other option for obtaining a Stainless Daytona is via the grey market where they command prices upwards of $8,750, however most pay around $10,000 for them....so not only are they anything but a "fad" but they are still very much in demand....

The new Daytona does in fact have a Rolex built and designed calibre movement in it, 4130 column wheel chrono movement with a 70 hour power reserve, bi directional winding, full balance bridge, breguet overcoil, micro-regulated and a new ball bearing rotor design which is a first for Rolex, it is considered by many to be their premire movement, and also one of if not the best chrono movement out on the market today. Many are hoping that since Rolex is now producing their own chrono movement that they will ramp up production and make them easier to get, however the Daytona is one of the best things Rolex has going for it as it really helps raise the status of the brand since it is very hard to get and in high demand....sometimes not selling alot is good

You are somewhat correct that the older Daytona didn't technically have a manufacture movement, instead it was based off a Zenith El Primerio chrono movement (another very fine chrono movement) however they (Rolex) changed over 50% of the functional components of the movement, slowed down the beat rate from 36bps to 28bps and added many of the signature Rolex components, so while the base was a Zenith many consider the movement to be so heavily modified that it is also very much Rolex...before that a standard Valijoux movement was used and those models commonly referred to as the Paul Newman model go for a ton of money as they are so collectable, I believe the Daytona was introduced in the 70s, killed off in the late 70s/early 80s and then reintroduced in the early 90s but I am not 100% on my timetable.

With regards to the lack of a date complication on the chrono, that was originally decided because they felt the date on the chrono dial really cluttered things up, both tha Valijoux and the latter Zenith based movements were more than capable of having a date feature, however the Rolex designers just felt it interfered with the functionality and the aesthetics of the chrono dial.....however many feel as you that the lack of a date is a serious minus....

Also interesting you mention this:

If you need accuracy (better than a couple seconds a DAY), take a look at the one quartz model that Rolex made(with the "OysterQuartz" movement): Accuracy of Quartz, styling & durability of a Rolex. Nice watch. Not to mention all the folks that'll tell you it's not a real Rolex because the second hand doesn't sweep correctly.

Word has it that the Oysterquartz is being discontinued or has already been discontinued as of this past year due to poor sales..people just didn't like the technology aspect of it and instead would opt for their automatic models, however I agree the Rolex quartz mechanism is one of if not the best quartz movements ever made however I don't like the 70's styling of the watch with its flatter squared shape and integrated bracelet...Many speculate that in 20 years or so these will become great collectors items as most Rolex models do which are low popularity and discontinued.....

Honestly if I had 6K to burn I would put my name on the list for a Daytona in a second, turn around and then sell it for an easy 2-3K and buy something else, however I do like the look but agree the chrono is pretty useless unless timing my popcorn.... but I do like them very very much, the Daytona along with the Blancpain Flyback, Omega Speedmaster Professional, Zenith Rainbow, and Heuer Monaco are a few of my favorite chronos....

Also if one loves the look of the newman daytona they can look for this:

Gevril Tribeca

The Gevril Tribeca, a LE model which bears a very striking resemblence to the old Newman styles at a fraction of the cost....while it uses a DD Piggyback chrono module on a base ETA movement the watch is very well made...I would love to have one but just cannot justify more than one nice watch....

If you really want to see a "fad" watch, take a look at any of the huge watches comming out from various brands such as Panerai with some of their 44mm models and Omega with their 40mm + sized dress Aqua Terra's....both of these brands/watches are clown sized and IMHO are only a passing fad as they are far too large to be even remotely considered practical and stylish...talk about drawing attention to oneself

oh well just my 2

 

[ScottMac]

True enough, I haven't paid much attention these last few years. Last I heard the Daytona had a, I think, Lemania... something like that,(can't remember off the top of my head) movement in 'em. IMHO, they're still a fad watch, and I wouldn't be surprised if Rolex didn't keep 'em scarce to keep the interest up for them ... normal marketing, no big deal. If everybody could get 'em, nobody'd want 'em. It worked for Tickle-Me Elmos, it can work for watches too.

I still don't like 'em, but that's probably just me.

I still have a minor letch for an IWC DeVinci. It's on the list. First I want to get the JL Master Reveil in Rose Gold. Then a DeVinci: After that, I'll take another look. No Datona in my future, even if they suddenly become available.

Another watch or two and I'll have to update my winder (or grow another couple arms).

Happy New Year

Scott

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
True enough, I haven't paid much attention these last few years. Last I heard the Daytona had a, I think, Lemania... something like that,(can't remember off the top of my head) movement in 'em. IMHO, they're still a fad watch, and I wouldn't be surprised if Rolex didn't keep 'em scarce to keep the interest up for them ... normal marketing, no big deal. If everybody could get 'em, nobody'd want 'em. It worked for Tickle-Me Elmos, it can work for watches too.

I still don't like 'em, but that's probably just me.

I still have a minor letch for an IWC DeVinci. It's on the list. First I want to get the JL Master Reveil in Rose Gold. Then a DeVinci: After that, I'll take another look. No Datona in my future, even if they suddenly become available.

Another watch or two and I'll have to update my winder (or grow another couple arms).

Happy New Year

Scott

Hey Scott, as I always say to each their own...I agree that the reason they are so scarce is due to supply, Rolex is keeping production down to improve their image much like Panerai limits their production of their 44mm models....

Like I said though there was never a lemania movement in a Daytona, the current model has an inhouse chrono made by Rolex, the Model before that had a Zenith movement, and the first Daytona's had Valijoux movements....the Lemanias are generally in Patek, Breguet and also the Speedy moon (pro) has one....

I am generally a fan of IWC watches but only their sportier or their pilots series...which IMHO have really gone down hill since Richemont bought them out, they now offer a spitfire line which is plain ugly to me....never really was into the Da Vinci but then again that is a very dressy piece....


For all who are interested...here is the Da Vinci:

Da Vinci

Here is the Daytona:

Daytona

And here is the JLC:

JLC

Obviosuly Scott you prefer dressier pieces...

Also don't forget the MSRP of the Da Vinci is about $13,000 give or take on a bracelet which is much more than either the Rolex or the JLC...


I really like all JLC's, especially their Master compressor model (sp?) but their use of Rose gold is very very nice....personally I would take this over the Da Vinci anyday...

good luck and happy new year to you as well.

 

[Asharus]

Wow, I just realized this thread was still going after I've made my decision.

Thanks for the tons of info bozack, I really appreciate it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

also while I have a Casio G shock with "indiglo" I always think it is very tacky to "light it up" especially in a theatre....like the legibility but that watch has been relegated to a gym and manual labor piece only.

Yeah, I dug this old thread up, deal with it. My problem with G Shocks is that while the watch takes a good beating, the band doesn't. Used to wear them for MTB'ing till a good crash&burn resulted in my discovering a bit later in the ride that my watch was gone since sliding down through the trail ripped it right off my arm :disgust: What's the point of making a tough watch with such a whimpy band unless you are going to use it for a Hockey puck evidently?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Asharus
Wow, I just realized this thread was still going after I've made my decision.

Thanks for the tons of info bozack, I really appreciate it.

Well, what did you buy?

 

[LiquidChill3d]

I deal in fine watches and gemstones. If you want the watch to hold its value and possibly increase, which over time certainly will, the Rolex is the way to go. Omegas are nice and they have their own following but the Rolex will always be on top of Omega. No, Rolex is not a Patek Phillipe nor an Audemars Piguet but for an entry level handmade watch...they can't be beat. I own and sell many Rolex timepieces and have had a few that needed repair to get them functioning well. There is always a lemon, not to mention Folexes(counterfiet) out there so buy from a reputible dealer if you buy it used. Feel free to e-mail me @ clintbyrd@hotmail.com if you have any questions.
LiquidChill3d

 

[Asharus]

Bump for edit.

 

[Asharus]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Asharus
Wow, I just realized this thread was still going after I've made my decision.

Thanks for the tons of info bozack, I really appreciate it.

Well, what did you buy?

Whoa didn't realize this thread was still going. I chose the Rolex Sub in Black/SS, but I scratched the bezel up already by smacking my wrist against a chair! That is why I'm looking for an Invicta now for everyday use. I'll probably get a watch winder too.

 

[ajpa123]

Submariner.. no doubt!
I had one for a while.. traded it in for one 1/2 the price.. then sold that one. I bought it as a reward to myself.. Then later thought it was too much of a show-off. I now wear a $100 Seiko from Overstock.com that i'm happy with.