Rolex = Omega (While Being a Better Value)?

[youinthehat]

I know this has been beaten to death.

And I know i'll probably get slaughtered for this topic but I genuinally curious. Well curious for the month of April 2014 because Im sure there are a multitude of topics spanning throughout the years.

So im a sub lover. Have on myself. Adore it.

I also am interested in eventually getting a PO. The thing I see alot is that Omega is just a better bang for the buck watch. The 8500, according to alot of people, have almost an advantage in every category. They say its "technologically state of the art" while the Rolex is still using the bread and butter.

With that being said, why would someone want a rolex then? I know some of the reasons would be heritage and icon but at the same time, a reason that frequently pops up is "for the name." Im sure there is some truth to it, but tbh, it makes Rolex owners sound extremely vain. Do we really purchase Rolex just because we can say we wear a Rolex? When there is a company like Omega that produced a state of the art movement with quite a number of technological advances that is almost half the price?

Many people would say "I like the PO8500 but its just too thick." Well Omega showed off the Seamaster 300M with Master Co-Axial which is based off of the 8500 and its quite a bit thinner than the 8500. This just goes to show that eventually, the 8500 will be come as thin as the Rolex movements. What would be the excuse then?

I don't know. I guess the constant "why would you buy a rolex when an omega is better in everyway, including cost" is starting to nag me.

Actually no , I would never give up my sub but still, just curious on ya'lls opinion.

[MP5]

First I dispute Omega is better. I don't feel in any way. Where are the thickness specs for the new sm300? The clown watch thickness have gotten old. BTW ever take a look at resale?

[brandog]

Well, to start I would say the new Omega 300M is similar in quality and bang for buck as the Rolex Sub, but that watch is what somewhere around $8,000 (i think) so I don't see your point. If Omega was offering the same quality product at a cheaper cost then you would have something.

Omega has been around longer then Rolex yet everyone knows Rolex because along the road they did it better. Just like Ferrari did it better then Alfa Romeo. To answer your question "Do we really purchase Rolex just because we can say we wear a Rolex?", in some degree yes. Do people who drive Ferrari's drive them to pick up chicks and to flaunt their success, yes. But there is a certain accepted quality and performance that comes with these elite products. Omega has spent millions of dollars in marketing the past couple years to try to compete with Rolex, but at the end of the day they will never be Rolex. Everyone knows Rolex, not everyone knows Omega, it has already been imbedded in everyones brain, just like Ferrari will forever be the ultimate dream car company no matter how much marketing Porsche, Alfa, Mercedes do. When was the last time you even saw a Ferrari commercial or magazine ad? I rest my case.

Just my 2 cents.

[youinthehat]

Originally Posted by brandog

Well, to start I would say the new Omega 300M is similar in quality and bang for buck as the Rolex Sub, but that watch is what somewhere around $8,000 (i think) so I don't see your point. If Omega was offering the same quality product at a cheaper cost then you would have something.

Omega has been around longer then Rolex yet everyone knows Rolex because along the road they did it better. Just like Ferrari did it better then Alfa Romeo. To answer your question "Do we really purchase Rolex just because we can say we wear a Rolex?", in some degree yes. Do people who drive Ferrari's drive them to pick up chicks and to flaunt their success, yes. But there is a certain accepted quality and performance that comes with these elite products. Omega has spent millions of dollars in marketing the past couple years to try to compete with Rolex, but at the end of the day they will never be Rolex. Everyone knows Rolex, not everyone knows Omega, it has already been imbedded in everyones brain, just like Ferrari will forever be the ultimate dream car company no matter how much marketing Porsche, Alfa, Mercedes do. When was the last time you even saw a Ferrari commercial or magazine ad? I rest my case.

Just my 2 cents.

You bring up a good point regarding MSRP but look around. Omega watches are being discounted almost 25-30% from sticker. Yeah you can't get that price from the Boutique but its the fact that you could still obtain it for that much cheaper. Even the marketplace here, the most you can save on a rolex is probably 10% from sticker price when comparing apples to apples (brand new).

I guess its the fact that people make Rolex owners come off as some kind of snooty, douche, type people who only get it for the name.

I don't think Rolex could be compared to Ferrari's because exotic cars, at least to me, always seem to be progressing. They always have some kind of upgrade, whether it might be more horsepower, better tech etc. The movement inside the rolex has been almost the same for decades. It would be like buying a 1980 vintage ferrari vs a 2013 GTR. The ferrari would give the driver "yeah. I drive a ferrari" but the GTR would have an upgrade in almost every category.

[MaxCargo]

MRSP for the Omega Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial is 5500 CHF in dollars its 6240 $
The 114060 is 7500$

[Saoirse32]

Originally Posted by brandog

Well, to start I would say the new Omega 300M is similar in quality and bang for buck as the Rolex Sub, but that watch is what somewhere around $8,000 (i think) so I don't see your point. If Omega was offering the same quality product at a cheaper cost then you would have something.

Omega has been around longer then Rolex yet everyone knows Rolex because along the road they did it better. Just like Ferrari did it better then Alfa Romeo. To answer your question "Do we really purchase Rolex just because we can say we wear a Rolex?", in some degree yes. Do people who drive Ferrari's drive them to pick up chicks and to flaunt their success, yes. But there is a certain accepted quality and performance that comes with these elite products. Omega has spent millions of dollars in marketing the past couple years to try to compete with Rolex, but at the end of the day they will never be Rolex. Everyone knows Rolex, not everyone knows Omega, it has already been imbedded in everyones brain, just like Ferrari will forever be the ultimate dream car company no matter how much marketing Porsche, Alfa, Mercedes do. When was the last time you even saw a Ferrari commercial or magazine ad? I rest my case.

Just my 2 cents.

A little Rolex Kool-Aid?

Not sure I agree but that's the beauty of TRF. Your contention about Omega never being Rolex, probably right but who knows? Remember back in the day Omega was THE brand vs Rolex so things can always change. While Ferrari may be a "dream" car, everyone knows Porsche but if I put a Lambo and a Ferrari side by side, how many would get the brand correct if asked what it was? I'm 100% sure Porsche (which does very little marketing) doesn't concern itself with Ferrari and vice versa. It's all perception I suppose. One thing I cannot disagree, though, is resale. Rolex beats every brand I've owned, hands down. And for what it's worth, saw a Ferrari ad just last week!

[newtype8825]

The Omega watches are cheaper check out their price list

[the dark knight]

I guess the 8500 is more technologically advanced than the 3135, but what I struggle with sometimes is these aren't exactly computers we are talking about here. For a simple 3-handed wristwatch, how much more "technology" do you really need here? Both an 8500 Omega or a Rolex will run within COSC specs and offer good shock protection. Both have enough power reserve. So beyond that, what does that advanced technology offer?

Not being rhetorical for the sake of argument, I'm just genuinely curious.

Omega is a terrific brand that stands on its own merits, but I guess reality dictates that it always will be compared with Rolex, and is often seen as a "better bang for buck" Rolex. It offers brand prestige, versatile models that can dress up or down, and durable waterproof watches very much like Rolex.

Interestingly, imo, I think Omega has done enough now to stand alone as its own brand without Rolex comparisons. What Omega did about 10-15 years ago, offer Rolex like range at a cheaper price using decorated ETA movements, I think Tudor does better now.

[Broker Boy]

Great response.

I've known about Omega for as long as I've known about Rolex.

And I've always wanted a Rolex. Never thought twice about Omega.

[the dark knight]

Also, as crazy as this sounds, I like Rolex because I feel it is more of a "stealth" luxury brand. I think Omega's more recent offerings stand out a bit more. If I see a guy in the mall wearing a Sub or a DJ, I don't really look twice. If I see someone wearing an 8500 PO, it does stand out a bit to me.

Also, at least among my non-WIS friends now, Omega seems to get as much respect as Rolex for name prestige.

So the name part really didn't factor into the equation, cause I'd rather people just think I'm wearing an Invicta or something, and draw less attention that way.

[Mack Bolan]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Also, as crazy as this sounds, I like Rolex because I feel it is more of a "stealth" luxury brand. I think Omega's more recent offerings stand out a bit more. If I see a guy in the mall wearing a Sub or a DJ, I don't really look twice. If I see someone wearing an 8500 PO, it does stand out a bit to me.

Also, at least among my non-WIS friends now, Omega seems to get as much respect as Rolex for name prestige.

So the name part really didn't factor into the equation, cause I'd rather people just think I'm wearing an Invicta or something, and draw less attention that way.

My non-wis friends think Omega is a nice looking watch you buy at the mall BUT Rolex is something unattainable..worn only by super rich people. This in reality is the truth of what the "regular" person thinks when it comes to watches. Patek? They never heard of it....In fact I know a few people that thought Patek was a cheap fashion watch...

[Blackdog]

I own both brands. I used to be a great fan of Omega. Historically, the brand represented affordable quality. Today, no so much anymore.

I would probably not mention value, because that's extremely subjective.
But cost of ownership is a more objective parameter, and in that sense Rolex seems to come on top.

Quality-wise Omega is really high. Pretty much in the same class as Rolex (IMO).

But there are things that I dislike from Omega. The manually operated HEV on the divers is just a silly gimmick. A solution to a problem mostly no-one has, and a bad solution at it.

The Coaxial escapement. I still do not see the advantages in real life. I liked the older modded ETA models better, but Omega wanted to be at the same level of Rolex, so they had to go in-house. And drive the prices up, while they were at it. I don't like it, but I have to admit that I understand them.

But the worst thing about Omega, in my personal experience, is the absolutely shitty service of the Swatch Group in Benelux.

Everytime I take a watch in for service or repair I have no option but to go through the Swatch SC in Benelux. And every single time I sent one it never came fully corrected/repaired/serviced the first time. I ALWAYS had to send it back at least once !

I can't speak about other Omega service centres, but the Benelux one is a disgrace.

The only time I did not have a problem with them was with a vintage 76 Speedy Auto. The watch went to them, but being vintage they didn't touch it and sent it directly to Switzerland. And the guys in Switzerland did a splendid restoration job on the watch, and for a very reasonable price. It came back as new, and it's one of the most accurate watches I own.

In that sense, Rolex service centres seem to be much, much better.

[scarlet knight]

I have 3 Omegas, 2 Rolexes. None are better or worse. They are different from each other and I appreciate them all.

[the dark knight]

Also, this is purely my opinion of course and many will disagree. But so far the reason I've always flipped my considerable number of Omega acquisitions is that compared to Rolex, I've always gotten the feel that Omega's watches are less than the sum of its parts. Take the PO 8500. The movement looks nice and by all accounts is superb. Great case, finishing, terrific bracelet, etc. But as a whole, the watch just didn't "come together" in the way that a Rolex always seems to do so.

[youinthehat]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Also, this is purely my opinion of course and many will disagree. But so far the reason I've always flipped my considerable number of Omega acquisitions is that compared to Rolex, I've always gotten the feel that Omega's watches are less than the sum of its parts. Take the PO 8500. The movement looks nice and by all accounts is superb. Great case, finishing, terrific bracelet, etc. But as a whole, the watch just didn't "come together" in the way that a Rolex always seems to do so.

I mean, resale value is very important. I understand what the appeal is for a person to buy a watch and then be surprised he got almost the same amount he paid back.

But in my eyes, resale value should rarely be factored into a watch decision. Again thats only my opinion. I go into every watch purchase with the mentality of, I will give this to my kids one day. Resale value is a moot point to me.

[MP5]

Originally Posted by youinthehat

I mean, resale value is very important. I understand what the appeal is for a person to buy a watch and then be surprised he got almost the same amount he paid back.

But in my eyes, resale value should rarely be factored into a watch decision. Again thats only my opinion. I go into every watch purchase with the mentality of, I will give this to my kids one day. Resale value is a moot point to me.

In fact it does matter when you spew terms like value, bang for the buck, ect. Unless this is a move the goalpost type discussion you are having here. I for one will think omega has made a modern watch when they can finally match the precise bezel action of a 1970s Rolex. Until then they bought the rights to an escapement and bought an off the shel movt so the public could R&Dt for them then made an in house movt twice as thick and some call it "innovative" and "high tech"

[youinthehat]

Originally Posted by MP5

In fact it does matter when you spew terms like value, bang for the buck, ect. Unless this is a move the goalpost type discussion you are having here. I for one will think omega has made a modern watch when they can finally match the precise bezel action of a 1970s Rolex. Until then they bought the rights to an escapement and bought an off the shel movt so the public could R&Dt for them then made an in house movt twice as thick and some call it "innovative" and "high tech"

Not really spew.

Bang for the buck is the best quality that can be obtained for the least amount of money.

Resale value doesn't play into that. No need to super defensive man.

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by youinthehat

Not really spew.

Bang for the buck is the best quality that can be obtained for the least amount of money.

Resale value doesn't play into that. No need to super defensive man.

This whole "value" discussion always makes me chuckle. If you want bang for the buck, buy a Timex quartz. They keep perfect time and are indestructible, oh, and value priced. If you want to get warm and tingly staring at a hunk of metal on your wrist, buy an Omega or Rolex. Once one moves past the basics of time keeping it is ALL about the emotions the brands can elicit from individuals.

Is a watch that gains 1 spd a much higher quality than one that gain 3 spd? From a practical standpoint it generally is a moot point, but the emotional feelings tied to a 1 spd watch vs. a 3 spd watch can be much stronger... if being OCD is how you are emotionally wired.

I ended up moving from "value" watches like Orient and Tissot right to Rolex and ended up skipping an Omega purchase because the watch, the brand, just did not get my pulse going. Same reason I bought a Jeep Rubicon vs. a Toyota FJ... I'm sure both can get me from point A to B with a mountain and stream in between but the Jeep made me feel better while doing it and while en route to do it.

Certainly different people are wired differently and there will be those whose hearts race more when slapping on an Omega and hopping in their FJ... but once one moves from "necessity" to "luxury" the dynamics shift from the physical to the emotional so 'bang for the buck' is a state of mind and cannot be quantitatively measured.

[Rickn]

Taken on it's own, many Omega watches can stand on its merits. However the brand is erratic. Outside the Speedmaster Professional series, their modern watches lack the same continuity and history of Rolex pieces. 40 years from now a sub is still going to look like a sub. A planet ocean may be a long since discontinued model.

[MaxCargo]

Originally Posted by Rickn

Taken on it's own, many Omega watches can stand on its merits. However the brand is erratic. Outside the Speedmaster Professional series, their modern watches lack the same continuity and history of Rolex pieces. 40 years from now a sub is still going to look like a sub. A planet ocean may be a long since discontinued model.

good point

[rainbowmax]

Originally Posted by MaxCargo

good point

Very Good point

[rolexnub]

Originally Posted by Rickn

Taken on it's own, many Omega watches can stand on its merits. However the brand is erratic. Outside the Speedmaster Professional series, their modern watches lack the same continuity and history of Rolex pieces. 40 years from now a sub is still going to look like a sub. A planet ocean may be a long since discontinued model.

I totally agree

[mike]

Originally Posted by Rickn

Taken on it's own, many Omega watches can stand on its merits. However the brand is erratic. Outside the Speedmaster Professional series, their modern watches lack the same continuity and history of Rolex pieces. 40 years from now a sub is still going to look like a sub. A planet ocean may be a long since discontinued model.

Well said.

I'm a huge fan of the Speedmaster. I do wish they would let up on the limited editions though.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by mike

Well said.

I'm a huge fan of the Speedmaster. I do wish they would let up on the limited editions though.

Forget competing with Rolex they are trying to outdo AP with all of these!

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by Rickn

Taken on it's own, many Omega watches can stand on its merits. However the brand is erratic. Outside the Speedmaster Professional series, their modern watches lack the same continuity and history of Rolex pieces. 40 years from now a sub is still going to look like a sub. A planet ocean may be a long since discontinued model.

Agreed. Omega is all over the place with their models. They go through movements like there is no tomorrow, they have tons of limited editions, etc...

I used to be a big Omega fan, but that quickly changed when I found Rolex. There really is no comparison between both brands. I love my Omega 2254.50 and I will never get rid of it. It is my first, only, and last Omega that I will ever buy.

[ronricks]

Had both. I prefer Rolex. The fit and finish of the Rolex is just better in my opinion. Not everyone is going to feel that way.

[alanc]

Excellent points here, and I don't have much to add. I recently bought a blue "Skyfall" Aqua Terra with the idea of selling my Explorer I, and a week later returned the Aqua Terra; and I still lust for the OMEGA DIVER 300 M CO-AXIAL CHRONOGRAPH 41.5 MM in blue, which is a gorgeous chrono for 6000 US.

In general, Rolex has more history and continuity than Omega. Value retention is an added plus. That said, particular Omega watches are good values and very desirable.

[repoman]

Originally Posted by alanc

I recently bought a blue "Skyfall" Aqua Terra with the idea of selling my Explorer I, and a week later returned the Aqua Terra; ...

In general, Rolex has more history and continuity than Omega. Value retention is an added plus. That said, particular Omega watches are good values and very desirable.

Agree, although I really do Like Omega and Rolex, they are my two favorite watch companies. I have been lusting after an Aqua Terra Master Co-Axial, but, my heart of hearts tells me I will have buyers remorse. It's an open question if any of these newer Seamasters become long time classics. These Omega's aren't cheap - they are every bit as expensive as a Rolex. Omega does lack continuity, they dilute meaningful brands like Speedmaster with automatics, or "reduced" versions, and way way too many "limited" editions (although that Apollo-Soyuz 35th anniversary meteorite dial is gorgeous). Still, I do like Omega's, own two of them, and will probably buy another at some point very soon, but I don't have the same level of confidence that I had just recently buying my first Rolex, which I know I will own, and enjoy the rest of my life, and proudly pass it down to one of my sons.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Rickn

Taken on it's own, many Omega watches can stand on its merits. However the brand is erratic. Outside the Speedmaster Professional series, their modern watches lack the same continuity and history of Rolex pieces. 40 years from now a sub is still going to look like a sub. A planet ocean may be a long since discontinued model.

From 1991 to 2001 I only had Vintage Omega. Then it took me more than 10 years to build this "modern" collection (2001-2012), and when I finally got there I realised I only had old discontinued pieces. I Sold all of them (except the vintage) for a Sub-C and a Sub-C Date and I never looked back. Guess this sums up how I feel about the constant changes they make in their lineup.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by FTX I

From 1991 to 2001 I only had Vintage Omega. Then it took me more than 10 years to build this "modern" collection (2001-2012), and when I finally got there I realised I only had old discontinued pieces.

How does that vary from Celini and Tudor?