Do you think Rolex will ?

[DJ2020]

Omega has the most consistent mechanical watch movement in my experience. Every Omega watch I have owned and worn were consistently .05 to as much as +2 spd. None of which I ever had a single issue with. Speedy dates to Planet Ocean's.

I am most partial to the 8800. And of course 8500, 8900, 1164 etc. But the 8800 I seem to like the best. For Rolex I have better luck with older model rather than new. I know some state the problems with the new 32xx movements is sporadic. But I have owned 5 since 2016 and was plagued with problems with every single one of them. Several required multiple trips to a RSC and still no fix.

My question is, Omega has now launched the new sprirate escapement with a advertisement of 0 to +2 seconds per day with the new Speedy racing. Half of what Rolex advertises (and can rarely deliver). Omega is sure to eventually roll it into every model. Plus 160,000 gauss magnetic resistance! That's a pretty high bar set for the competition.

So do you think Rolex will try and compete against such a movement. And can they even do it with any kind of reliability?

[rmwill]

All of my Rolex watches are between +2 and +0. Speedy is -6. Omega has superior movement marketing.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by rmwill

All of my Rolex watches are between +2 and +0. Speedy is -6. Omega has superior movement marketing.

Is your Speedy the new 3861 or a 321/861/1861?

While my personal allegiance/affection is for the latter, they're midcentury Lemania movements (and excellent ones); it's only the 3861 that's actually an Omega movement.

[Pius XIII]

It’s true. Omega has surpassed Rolex’s timekeeping prowess by light years. My 3861 Speedmaster is the most accurate mechanical watch I’ve ever had and I’ve heard many similar stories about the other Omega Master Chronometer movements. Meanwhile Rolex still can’t get a handle on the accuracy issues in the 32XX series movements.

[Kreyzhorse]

Omega has better movements, Rolex has better fit and finish. Better, in these two makers is a very small difference in my opinion.

[Nikrnic]

I've been a new and used Rolex fan for quite awhile but after buying 2 used Omegas, a Seamaster and Planet Ocean I'm more impressed with the brand. I sold my Rolex collection of 6 digits and kept the two of my older 5 digit pieces, a Sub and GMT.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[the dark knight]

Lol, I love Omega but my goodness this hobby is never short on hyperbole and short memories. Everyone has just miraculously forgot about the 2500 movement problems, eh? And yes I had a couple of these movements and they all developed issues.

[tictoc1]

when Omega came out with the coaxial escapement I think they had an edge over rolex with regards advancement but since then rolex has modified several calibers and come out with new hairsprings to keep up with movement technology.

Outside the movement world rolex has surpassed omega with regards to bracelet advancement, ceramic bezel advancement.

I don't think rolex needs to make any big changes as they are still producing a robust reliable watch, but In my opinion if rolex is looking over its shoulder, it should be to seiko/grand seiko.

[Pius XIII]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Lol, I love Omega but my goodness this hobby is never short on hyperbole and short memories. Everyone has just miraculously forgot about the 2500 movement problems, eh? And yes I had a couple of these movements and they all developed issues.

I remember the 2500 movement issues. Heck I remember the issues with the 3861 movement, and that took Omega only about a year or two for those issues to disappear in brand new watches. The problem is that the 32XX movements have been around for 7 years and there are still plenty of issues that Rolex has not addressed. From a movement perspective I’ve been more impressed with my current generation Speedmaster and Seamaster than the Submariners and GMTs I’ve owned. I would love for Omega to catch up to Rolex in the bracelet department but that’s about it.

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Lol, I love Omega but my goodness this hobby is never short on hyperbole and short memories. Everyone has just miraculously forgot about the 2500 movement problems, eh? And yes I had a couple of these movements and they all developed issues.

The 2500d movement was and is the finest version in the 2500 series. It’s in my Planet Ocean and has been running spot on for over 12 years.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Lol, I love Omega but my goodness this hobby is never short on hyperbole and short memories. Everyone has just miraculously forgot about the 2500 movement problems, eh? And yes I had a couple of these movements and they all developed issues.

I bought a PO2500C in 2005 and it never had a single issue. Still wear it today.

[vesnyder]

My two GMT's keep beter time than my two Speedmasters.

[Calatrava r]

Omega and Rolex are different with Omega having the arguably better movement. This may be even truer with the latest Rolex movements and their issue reported here. Not that it matters much, Rolex watches are all pre-sold while Omega's cases are full of un-sold products.

[Masteryacht]

Omega is already far ahead because you can actually go in a store and buy one.

[Rollieo]

I had one issue with my SMP 300 bond watch (wouldn’t automatically wind), abut after fixing it many years ago it runs great.

I’ve never had issues with any of my Rolexes (2012 DJ, 2019 GMT, 2021 Explorer) and have never serviced any of them. Frankly I’ve never brought in any of my watches for service the last 15 years except the one time for the SMP 300.

The issue with Omega is their watches are too thick. That’s their biggest issue, but co-axial was a purchased innovation and their “in house” movements are spread across Swatch production capabilities. Not truly in house

[rmwill]

Great logic: Big Macs are better than artisan craft burgers because they are easier to get? Omega is easier to get and deprecate like crazy because? Less demand!

Originally Posted by Masteryacht

Omega is already far ahead because you can actually go in a store and buy one.

[MrMercedes]

Originally Posted by Masteryacht

Omega is already far ahead because you can actually go in a store and buy one.

[JRell]

They all can’t compete with the real time mobile time. They both are close enough, so the brand will take over. Rolex rules the brand game over omega.

[Pauln]

I’m wearing a 2 year old 124060. I set it about a month ago. Right now it’s less than 1 second off. I don’t think I need a more accurate watch. The vast majority of my Rolexes have behaved this way. So this discussion really comes down to form for me. I like Rolex’s form much more than Omega’s.

[OG1982]

I’ve owned a 3861 Speedie and a 8900 Planet Ocean, and both were by far my 2 most accurate watches. I’ve owned 4 Tudors, 5 Rolex, many multiples of Seiko and Tissot and a Panerai.

Saying that, I still own 3 Rolex and and have sold both Omegas. Not sure exactly what that means apart from I clearly prefer less accurate Rolex watches!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by Ollie1982

I’ve owned a 3861 Speedie and a 8900 Planet Ocean, and both were by far my 2 most accurate watches. I’ve owned 4 Tudors, 5 Rolex, many multiples of Seiko and Tissot and a Panerai.

Saying that, I still own 3 Rolex and and have sold both Omegas. Not sure exactly what that means apart from I clearly prefer less accurate Rolex watches!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Omega is technologically way ahead at this point, but they’ve sabotaged their own success once the in house movement switch happened by adding hockey puck thick cases so that they can have a big display back even on divers.

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Omega is technologically way ahead at this point, but they’ve sabotaged their own success once the in house movement switch happened by adding hockey puck thick cases so that they can have a big display back even on divers.

The planet ocean was a thick watch, but then you’d expect a 600m diver with a domed crystal and exhibition case back to be relatively large. It was a great watch, but it was no submariner on various levels (movement aside) and I didn’t care much for the blue AR coating used on this particular model.

The speedie on the other hand was of the sapphire sandwich flavour and was no hockey puck, that thing was sized and wore beautifully. The accuracy was amazing, but the 50m water resistance and the fact that it was a pain (I’d say uncomfortable) to wind meant it got moved on for a Rolex which is an inferior timepiece, but one that makes me more happy, for some reason…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by Ollie1982

The planet ocean was a thick watch, but then you’d expect a 600m diver with a domed crystal and exhibition case back to be relatively large. It was a great watch, but it was no submariner on various levels (movement aside) and I didn’t care much for the blue AR coating used on this particular model.

The speedie on the other hand was of the sapphire sandwich flavour and was no hockey puck, that thing was sized and wore beautifully. The accuracy was amazing, but the 50m water resistance and the fact that it was a pain (I’d say uncomfortable) to wind meant it got moved on for a Rolex which is an inferior timepiece, but one that makes me more happy, for some reason…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah but I mention that because the PO with the solid caseback actually wore better than an SD, even, despite being an extreme dive watch–and then the exhibition caseback made it much harder to wear. Still a beautiful dial and bezel.

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Omega is too far ahead in movement? Yeah, me no think so. Oh they are good movements, but to make a blanket statement like that is ridiculous. Oh, if that is your experience with your watches I don’t doubt it for a second, but Omega being superior then the most successful watch manufacturer in the world? No. I would accept this argument if you were comparing them to maybe AP or PP, but not Omega.

Different kinds of watches. AP, PP, and JLC are fairer to compare to each other. Rolex and Omega hold a pretty unique position and several core similarities.

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

For you owners and admirers of Omega, they are phenomenal watches, wear them in good health! But in our lifetime, Rolex will not be adjusting their movements in response to Omega. If waiting lines stop, and Omega sales surpass Rolex, then sure, but that won’t happen for many many years if ever.

Rolex did exactly that… what do you think the 32-series movement is? It was rushed out to market underbaked to compete with Omega's high power reserve.

Originally Posted by Etschell

tudor has better movements than rolex currently. there i said it.

lol, I've joked they should put a new rotor on the MT-series movement and pop it in as a 33-series. Apart from the date issue on the GMTs, they seem to offer the same benefits as the 32-series without the issues. It's actually a bit confusing to me, considering both of those movements were developed in-house by Rolex. (I hate that the watch press always opens with 'Kenissi' as being co-owned by Chanel because it's quite misleading–Rolex gave them a small stake in it, but they're designed by Rolex and built in Tudor's factory, so that Rolex can become the new ETA. Kenissi is Tudor.)

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by Scholar

(I hate that the watch press always opens with 'Kenissi' as being co-owned by Chanel because it's quite misleading–Rolex gave them a small stake in it, but they're designed by Rolex and built in Tudor's factory, so that Rolex can become the new ETA. Kenissi is Tudor.)

This is interesting — why then are all the Tudor GMTs unbalanced (top heavy) and 2.5mm thicker than Rolex GMTs? (Not being acerbic — I’m just curious what makes that movement so much thicker than the 3186/3285).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alphadweller]

My most accurate mechanical watch was the Speedy Racing 44 cal. 9900. It would gain 2s a week. Got rid of it though, couldn't stand the absence of a date quickset. Legibility wasn't great either.

That's until I got my TT blue Sub41. I was able to keep it ticking at 0 s/d over 10 days just by letting it rest horizontal up when not worn.

I'm curious about the new sprirate escapement from Omega, looking forward to seeing it trickle down to other models.

I'm sure Rolex will eventually come up with an update of their 3235 which will adress the deficiency reported by many. Maybe they'll just scrap it and develop a better caliber altogether. I'm sure they will respond to Omega.

[Roddypeepa]

My seamaster master coaxial is minus 4. So not really in every case. YMMV


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fleetlord]

No because it doesn't matter to the vast majority of people.

All of that tech and spec that Omega is boasting about doesn't put ROLEX on the dial and that's what matters most.

[westsideclock]

Originally Posted by fleetlord

no because it doesn't matter to the vast majority of people.

All of that tech and spec that omega is boasting about doesn't put rolex on the dial and that's what matters most.

+1. There is a reason a Sub is $10k and a Seamaster is $5k

[TheVTCGuy]

Omega is too far ahead in movement? Yeah, me no think so. Oh they are good movements, but to make a blanket statement like that is ridiculous. Oh, if that is your experience with your watches I don’t doubt it for a second, but Omega being superior then the most successful watch manufacturer in the world? No. I would accept this argument if you were comparing them to maybe AP or PP, but not Omega. For you owners and admirers of Omega, they are phenomenal watches, wear them in good health! But in our lifetime, Rolex will not be adjusting their movements in response to Omega. If waiting lines stop, and Omega sales surpass Rolex, then sure, but that won’t happen for many many years if ever.

[Agamemnon]

Rolex is traditionalist and faithful to its unmistakable and timeless style: it will remain as it is.