ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 01:48 AM

Hello everybody! I'm back!

After having seen and touched the brand new Omega PO I was wondering what did you think about this watch.
I opened this thread here just because the PO is the direct competitor of the Sub, of course. It's a nice watch, but not as much as the Sub, in my opinion.
They have copied the ceramic bezel.. I didn't appreciated that.

I think the liquidmetal was a more personal and innovative choice. Why do they have to copy Rolex's way???
But we know, Omega is just the follower, Rolex is the ruler!
Whay do you think about that?

dsio · 8 December 2011, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbyCrowned

Hello everybody! I'm back!

After having seen and touched the brand new Omega PO I was wondering what did you think about this watch.
I opened this thread here just because the PO is the direct competitor of the Sub, of course. It's a nice watch, but not as much as the Sub, in my opinion.
They have copied the ceramic bezel.. I didn't appreciated that.

I think the liquidmetal was a more personal and innovative choice. Why do they have to copy Rolex's way???
But we know, Omega is just the follower, Rolex is the ruler!
Whay do you think about that?

God people write some nonsense at times...

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

God people write some nonsense at times...

This is your opinion! Explain please!

dsio · 8 December 2011, 01:57 AM

The PO is not a copy of the Sub, the PO is a copy of the SM300 Omega's diver from 1957, if you don't believe me you can do some research.

The liquid metal bezel was not made of liquid metal, it was ceramic, the indicies were inlaid liquid metal, the non liquid metal bezels are the same, just with different indicies. If you want to get historical, Rado used ceramics 40 odd years ago, Rado is Swatch Group, as is Omega, so you could say Rolex lost by almost half a century, if johnson measuring contests about who planted their flag first are seen as a measure of quality.

Every couple of weeks there's this same thread, Sub vs PO, "Omega copies Rolex" "Oh but it'll still never be a Rolex" "Hi 5 ya'll" etc etc. As a sub owner it makes me cringe, the sub is a good enough watch without trying to start a brand war.

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

The PO is not a copy of the Sub, the PO is a copy of the SM300 Omega's diver from 1957, if you don't believe me you can do some research.

I'm not saying that the Seamaster is the copy of the Submariner! I'm just comparing the features of the last 2 models!

Quote:

The liquid metal bezel was not made of liquid metal, it was ceramic, the indicies were inlaid liquid metal, the non liquid metal bezels are the same, just with different indicies.

Yes, you're right! Just I don't like the new "mat" ceramic bezel! I prefer the liquidmetal version!

Quote:

If you want to get historical, Rado used ceramics 40 odd years ago, Rado is Swatch Group, as is Omega, so you could say Rolex lost by almost half a century, if johnson measuring contests about who planted their flag first are seen as a measure of quality.

I was not discussing on the first use of ceramic in watches, but I was considering the fact that after Rolex have used the ceramic for bezels Omega just did the same!

Quote:

Every couple of weeks there's this same thread, Sub vs PO, "Omega copies Rolex" "Oh but it'll still never be a Rolex" "Hi 5 ya'll" etc etc. As a sub owner it makes me cringe, the sub is a good enough watch without trying to start a brand war.

I,m sorry I don't wanna start a brand war! Just wanna know impressions and comparisons between the 2!

esm · 8 December 2011, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbyCrowned

Hello everybody! I'm back!

After having seen and touched the brand new Omega PO I was wondering what did you think about this watch.
I opened this thread here just because the PO is the direct competitor of the Sub, of course. It's a nice watch, but not as much as the Sub, in my opinion.
They have copied the ceramic bezel.. I didn't appreciated that.

I think the liquidmetal was a more personal and innovative choice. Why do they have to copy Rolex's way???
But we know, Omega is just the follower, Rolex is the ruler!
Whay do you think about that?

really?

which part of the PO was a copy of Sub?

why didnt you say that the Rolex ceramic bezel was a copy of Rado's ceramic watches?

did you know Rado owns by The Swatch Company, which also owns Omega.... so in that case... will it make Rolex a follower and The Swatch Company/Omega the ruler?

dsio · 8 December 2011, 02:03 AM

Cru Jones · 8 December 2011, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

you had me, but, then, you lost me there.....there's even a debate? never heard of it. how could anyone mention keira in the same breathe as natalie??!

dsio · 8 December 2011, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

you had me, but, then, you lost me there.....there's even a debate? never heard of it. how could anyone mention keira in the same breathe as natalie??!

Natalie is a great actress, but Keira is a Knightley.

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

Natalie is a great actress, but Keira is a Knightley.

ah ah ah ah!!! funboy!

Sorry, I'm just kidding! ;)

speedo · 8 December 2011, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

you had me, but, then, you lost me there.....there's even a debate? never heard of it. how could anyone mention keira in the same breathe as natalie??!

I swear i had not read this before posting.

Langleyz · 8 December 2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

how could anyone mention keira in the same breathe as natalie??!

What?!?!?!?

I could think of a one breathe sentence using both names.

capote · 8 December 2011, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

Where can I get in on that debate? Its NO debate really. One is extremely talented, the other one is just another actress

speedo · 8 December 2011, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

The first page of the fourth most monotonous debate in the history of fanboyism (after Chevy Vs Ford, iPhone Vs Android, and Natalie Portman Vs Keira Knightley).

Don't care about cars or phones but is there anyone that would pick keira knigthley over natalie portman?

htc8p · 8 December 2011, 04:55 PM

omega and rolex are seen as direct competitors. but i think the better comparison is the sea dweller vs the PO.

in this case i prefer the PO.

the sub is thinner the PO is thicker.
sub is smaller PO is bigger.
sub is lighter PO is heavier.

totally different watches

OrangeSport · 8 December 2011, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedo

Don't care about cars or phones but is there anyone that would pick keira knigthley over natalie portman?

All day long!

But, I wouldn't be disappointed to get the runner up prize either!

OrangeSport · 8 December 2011, 10:40 PM

Hmmm - pirate birds!

capote · 8 December 2011, 02:09 AM

I wonder how many posts before the comment: "An Omega is just a watch, a Rolex is a Rolex". My bet is third page, four posts from the lock.

As far as ceramic bezels go, the matte finish on the PO is way nicer than the shiny Rolex one. Of course you also have the new movement with superior power reserve and rubberstrap options that I like for a divers watch. The case and lugs are also nicer. Everything IMO as usual.

warrior · 9 December 2011, 11:02 AM

Damn...you essentially had a crystal ball.

Quote:

Originally Posted by capote

I wonder how many posts before the comment: "An Omega is just a watch, a Rolex is a Rolex". My bet is third page, four posts from the lock.

As far as ceramic bezels go, the matte finish on the PO is way nicer than the shiny Rolex one. Of course you also have the new movement with superior power reserve and rubberstrap options that I like for a divers watch. The case and lugs are also nicer. Everything IMO as usual.

Gharddog03 · 8 December 2011, 02:14 AM

Both Rolex and Omega make awesome watches. Each have their pros and cons IMO.

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gharddog03

Both Rolex and Omega make awesome watches. Each have their pros and cons IMO.

That's the point! I agree with you, but which one in this case has more pros and cons?

moby33 · 9 December 2011, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbyCrowned

That's the point! I agree with you, but which one in this case has more pros and cons?

Depends on who's counting. This is such a subjective question, I don't even see the reason in asking. Omega makes some amazing AND dreadful watches IMO...Rolex makes some amazing AND dreadful watches IMO...I could write examples of each until the cows come home, but all that will mean is countless agreements & disagreements. In the end I say buy what you like, wear what you love and forget about keeping score.

I love my SubC...but I sure can't wait to get my hands on the new POC 9300 (should go nicely with my SMP chrono I've loved for almost 10 years)!

Nica64 · 9 December 2011, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gharddog03

Both Rolex and Omega make awesome watches. Each have their pros and cons IMO.

Totally agree

,

Some people like Rolex more than Omega and the other way around, but in the end both are great watches. I own both brands and I'm very happy with both

Chris B · 8 December 2011, 02:17 AM

STEELINOX · 8 December 2011, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris B

Perfect !

Vaxe · 8 December 2011, 02:17 AM

Funny how folks always claim Rolex is 100% superior to Omega.

... I guess the marketing department must be doing something right?

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaxe

Funny how folks always claim Rolex is 100% superior to Omega.

... I guess the marketing department must be doing something right?

In this case the brand name makes the difference.. It's an important advantage that Rolex obtained during its history!
There are lots of manufactures better than Rolex, but the brand name is too much strong, and in this times it's the most important thing..!

dsio · 8 December 2011, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbyCrowned

In this case the brand name makes the difference.. It's an important advantage that Rolex obtained during its history!
There are lots of manufactures better than Rolex, but the brand name is too much strong, and in this times it's the most important thing..!

Well, Patek might beg to differ ;)

AlbyCrowned · 8 December 2011, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsio

Well, Patek might beg to differ ;)

Of course Patek is the other manufacture with the greatest brand name! Even in this case there are lots of better manufactures.
And I can say that probably Patek offers the lower quality given the prices! ;)

The GMT Master · 8 December 2011, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbyCrowned

In this case the brand name makes the difference.. It's an important advantage that Rolex obtained during its history!
There are lots of manufactures better than Rolex, but the brand name is too much strong, and in this times it's the most important thing..!

Well, it's easy to forget that Rolex hasn't always been top dog - indeed, up until they lost their way during the quartz crisis of the 1970s, it was Omega who were regarded as 'the best' Swiss watch brand. Perceptions can change, and it is happening again right now. China, which is rapidly becoming by far the most important watch market in the world, regards Omega as a superior brand to Rolex. It'll take some time to shift some of the remaining misconceptions about Omega (i.e. that they're inferior) here in the West, but I believe there will be a rebalancing of the market. Rolex do have a very big advantage with brand perception, and they do have a strong model line up right now, but Omega are very much snapping at Rolex's heels

8 December 2011, 01:48 AM	#1
AlbyCrowned Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Italy Posts: 128	Sub vs the new PO Hello everybody! I'm back! After having seen and touched the brand new Omega PO I was wondering what did you think about this watch. I opened this thread here just because the PO is the direct competitor of the Sub, of course. It's a nice watch, but not as much as the Sub, in my opinion. They have copied the ceramic bezel.. I didn't appreciated that. I think the liquidmetal was a more personal and innovative choice. Why do they have to copy Rolex's way??? But we know, Omega is just the follower, Rolex is the ruler! Whay do you think about that?

8 December 2011, 01:57 AM	#4
dsio "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Real Name: Ashley Location: Brisbane Watch: Rolex Sub 1680 '79 Posts: 2,301	The PO is not a copy of the Sub, the PO is a copy of the SM300 Omega's diver from 1957, if you don't believe me you can do some research. The liquid metal bezel was not made of liquid metal, it was ceramic, the indicies were inlaid liquid metal, the non liquid metal bezels are the same, just with different indicies. If you want to get historical, Rado used ceramics 40 odd years ago, Rado is Swatch Group, as is Omega, so you could say Rolex lost by almost half a century, if johnson measuring contests about who planted their flag first are seen as a measure of quality. Every couple of weeks there's this same thread, Sub vs PO, "Omega copies Rolex" "Oh but it'll still never be a Rolex" "Hi 5 ya'll" etc etc. As a sub owner it makes me cringe, the sub is a good enough watch without trying to start a brand war. __________________ -- Omega Seamaster Grand-Lux Stepped Pie-Pan 14K Gold OJ2627 '53 -- -- Omega Cal 320 Chronograph 18K Gold OT2872 '58 -- -- Omega Cal 321 Speedmaster Pro 145.012 '67 -- -- Rolex Submariner 1680 "Ghost" '79 -- -- Rolex SS Daytona 116520 '04 --

8 December 2011, 02:03 AM	#7
dsio "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Real Name: Ashley Location: Brisbane Watch: Rolex Sub 1680 '79 Posts: 2,301	The first page of the fourth most monotonous debate in the history of fanboyism (after Chevy Vs Ford, iPhone Vs Android, and Natalie Portman Vs Keira Knightley). http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=197201 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=179080 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=184187 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=159957 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=159954 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=149509 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=189216 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=140622 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=111805 __________________ -- Omega Seamaster Grand-Lux Stepped Pie-Pan 14K Gold OJ2627 '53 -- -- Omega Cal 320 Chronograph 18K Gold OT2872 '58 -- -- Omega Cal 321 Speedmaster Pro 145.012 '67 -- -- Rolex Submariner 1680 "Ghost" '79 -- -- Rolex SS Daytona 116520 '04 --

8 December 2011, 10:40 PM	#17
OrangeSport "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Real Name: Jason Location: Essex, UK Watch: 14060M Posts: 2,943	Hmmm - pirate birds! __________________

8 December 2011, 04:55 PM	#15
htc8p "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Bert Location: philippines Watch: 116710 ln Posts: 3,472	omega and rolex are seen as direct competitors. but i think the better comparison is the sea dweller vs the PO. in this case i prefer the PO. the sub is thinner the PO is thicker. sub is smaller PO is bigger. sub is lighter PO is heavier. totally different watches

8 December 2011, 02:09 AM	#18
capote "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Daniel Location: Sweden Watch: 16570 Posts: 7,315	I wonder how many posts before the comment: "An Omega is just a watch, a Rolex is a Rolex". My bet is third page, four posts from the lock. As far as ceramic bezels go, the matte finish on the PO is way nicer than the shiny Rolex one. Of course you also have the new movement with superior power reserve and rubberstrap options that I like for a divers watch. The case and lugs are also nicer. Everything IMO as usual.

8 December 2011, 02:14 AM	#20
Gharddog03 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Genaro Location: Fresno Ca. Watch: R O L E X Posts: 4,466	Both Rolex and Omega make awesome watches. Each have their pros and cons IMO.

8 December 2011, 02:17 AM	#24
Chris B "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Peterborough Posts: 9,631

8 December 2011, 02:17 AM	#26
Vaxe "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Austin TX Posts: 2,122	Funny how folks always claim Rolex is 100% superior to Omega. ... I guess the marketing department must be doing something right?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)