Omega PO GMT vs Tudor GMT

[Jerrocop]

Which one would you pick? Without consider of price or short term resale value is Omega the better watch?

[bgolfo]

I recently bought an omega planet ocean the newest version and I do not know why I waited so long. I would go Omega as on paper you cannot argue with the movement, master chronometer and the antimagnetic capabilities. But it depends on your personal taste...

[Etschell]

Planet ocean.

[pepsiretail]

I would prefer a 39.5 PO to either. And yeah, it is a better quality product.

[Sandpit]

The PO is one beast of a watch. Excellent watch but the wearer needs big wrists. The standard 43.5mm PO was also way too big for me.

[minute_man]

There's no comparison in terms of quality, technology and refinement.
The Omega wins hands down.
The hev and the depth rating though are not consistent with a GMT watch. So is the GMT function for a divers watch.

The omega ends up being neither and at 43,5mm is a bulkier piece, too.

The Tudor on the other hand is more practical and plausible, being more of a true GMT watch with substantially increased depth rating.

Had this Omega been smaller and sans-hev I'd choose it over any Tudor.

[Frank McKay]

Wow that PO looks sick! Is the bezel ceramic?

[minute_man]

Originally Posted by Frank McKay

Wow that PO looks sick! Is the bezel ceramic?

Yes.
Dial too

[judson]

I prefer the PO.

[kieselguhr]

Watch dimensions and functions for reference:

Omega seamaster PO GMT BW
-17.2mm thick
-49mm lug to lug
-43.5mm case diameter
-clasp slide adjustment
-diver’s extension
-display caseback
-true GMT
-ceramic bezel insert
-HEV

Tudor BB GMT RB
-14.5mm thick
-50.2mm lug to lug
-41mm case diameter
-true GMT
-aluminum bezel insert

(info from watchbox reviews, Tim Mosso)

I like the Omega’s monochromatic color scheme and superior bracelet adjustability. On the other hand, I prefer the matte dial of the Tudor, the aesthetics of the bracelet and clasp, and overall look of the Watch. Both would serve well in their intent as travel/dive watches.

I’ll go with the Tudor, it’s more pleasing to the eye and something that would fit my overall style.


AOW

[jvb.nc]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Watch dimensions and functions for reference:

Omega seamaster PO GMT BW
-17.2mm thick
-49mm lug to lug
-43.5mm case diameter
-clasp slide adjustment
-diver’s extension
-display caseback
-true GMT
-ceramic bezel insert
-HEV

Tudor BB GMT RB
-14.5mm thick
-50.2mm lug to lug
-41mm case diameter
-true GMT
-aluminum bezel insert

(info from watchbox reviews, Tim Mosso)

I like the Omega’s monochromatic color scheme and superior bracelet adjustability. On the other hand, I prefer the matte dial of the Tudor, the aesthetics of the bracelet and clasp, and overall look of the Watch. Both would serve well in their intent as travel/dive watches.

I’ll go with the Tudor, it’s more pleasing to the eye and something that would fit my overall style.


AOW

oddly though, the BB GMT wears WAY larger than these dimensions suggest; the PO is probably better at 42mm but even with the thickness (which i feel is rather de rigeur for Omega these days) i find the PO will wear smaller in the metal.

my $0.02 obviously and YMMV, but i definitely feel like the BB wears a lot bigger than just the paper would suggest.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by jvb.nc

oddly though, the BB GMT wears WAY larger than these dimensions suggest; the PO is probably better at 42mm but even with the thickness (which i feel is rather de rigeur for Omega these days) i find the PO will wear smaller in the metal.



my $0.02 obviously and YMMV, but i definitely feel like the BB wears a lot bigger than just the paper would suggest.

Fair assessment. I’ll attribute peoples perception of the PO’s better wearability to smaller lug to lug length and design.
I wear dive computers so case thickness (height) has never bothered me with dive watches.


AOW

[MP5]

One is wearable the other isn't

[pepsiretail]

Originally Posted by MP5

One is wearable the other isn't

I tried on the Tudor and I think unwearable is a little strong.

[MP5]

Originally Posted by pepsiretail

I tried on the Tudor and I think unwearable is a little strong.

The PO is unwearable you cheeky guy. The tudor is chamfered and fits anyone who can wear a 40mm

[JayHantz]

I like the PO in this instance.

[Jerrocop]

I'm leaning strongly towards the Omega . . .

I like the red/blue bezel of the Tudor but I'm still not a big fan of the snowflake hands. I really like the hands and dial of the omega though. The monochromatic bezel is meh and the date is likely to get lost in all the black. I also like the bracelet (with micro adjust and expandable) of the Omega. I have a very small concern that the movement on the Tudor isn't fixed yet. I think i'd be happy with either one though

[eltonbalch]

Better is a very subjective term. I purchased the Tudor GMT as an alternative to the Rolex GMT Pepsi and am very pleased with it. Omega is a cut above Tudor but I’m not a big fan of their design metric. For example, the extra crown for the He valve is just a useless appendage that detracts from the watch. Either is just fine; pick the one you like and will wear and don’t obsess about which one is “better”.

Edit: the snowflake hands on the Tudor are pretty unobtrusive in person; I have also had zero issues with date changes. I also put mine on an Everest rubber strap which is extremely comfortable.
https://i.imgur.com/CWHX7Lv.jpg

[quadraaa]

Omega is a better watch technically, but it is barely wearable with a case thickness exceeding 17mm.

[Jerrocop]

Originally Posted by quadraaa

Omega is a better watch technically, but it is barely wearable with a case thickness exceeding 17mm.

That's probably my main concern (I have yet to try it on). I've got an 8" wrist.

[watchdoc123]

Planet ocean GMT – hands-down. I own that watch and it is beautiful!

[The Libertine]

I own a Planet Ocean that I bought when the line was first introduced and it remains one of my favorite watches. That said, over the 10+ years since the PO was first released, I’ve not cared for the updates made by Omega. So, between the two choices, would pick the Tudor.

[jvb.nc]

in this particular case i think i’d have to go omega. the BB GMT just doesn’t sit well with me, and i can’t even fully explain why.

i do have a seamaster PO 600 (2500 from 2008) and i love it to pieces.

[ltmgeller]

Tudor Pepsi for me

[Mystro]

PO all day long.

[Likestheshiny]

Size and thickness are subjective, but the PO is undoubtedly the technically superior watch.

However, it's too big for me, so I'd personally get the BB.

[Tenebris Equum]

PO all day long, I personally think it's unfair to Tudor by comparing it against any of Omega's offerings.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

[quakeroatmeal]

The Tudor GMT date wheel function issue scares me off from really considering it.

[Dlong]

What did Richard Pryor say in Silver Streak when him and Gene Wilder were stealing the car. Hey man, that car is j**k off, this one here is pure pu**y. Kind like the PO and the Tudor. PO all the way.

[Aztro]

Tudor here for the money and value (related to this is the stronger relative resale). The PO needs to be about 10% smaller and sort out it’s helium valve- for the typical user, lose it entirely.